President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 09, 2011 09:22 PM UTC

Abortion didn't matter in the last election? Take a look at Congress now

  • 43 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Bait meets switch – promoted by Colorado Pols)

I never heard Sen. Michael Bennet mention the directional purpose of the anus, like that grandma did at the state Capitol Mon., but that didn’t stop Ken Buck from telling Bennet last year to shut up about social issues, like abortion.

The GOP, and allied pundits, liked to say that the election wasn’t about abortion.

How could it be, they said, with a pro-choice president, two freshly appointed pro-choice judges on the Supreme Court, and Roe vs. Wade the law of the land.

The election was about jobs, they said, jobs, jobs, jobs. And to talk about abortion, or run advertisements on social issues, was a distraction from the real issues facing America, an insulting and cynical way to win the votes of unaffiliated voters.

Fast forward to Washington DC, March 9, 2011. Abortion issues, including the crusade to cut Planned Parenthood funds, are at the center of negotiations that could lead to a shutdown of the federal government.

And lives are at stake. House Republicans have cut funding not only for Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion-related services, like cancer screenings, but also for international organizations, like the United Nations Population Fund, that provide women’s health services and family planning, excluding abortion, in the world’s most impoverished nations.

The Population Fund’s backers say the loss of funding would result in millions of unwanted pregnancies and tens of thousands of deaths of women and children.

So clearly abortion matters a lot, and it matters a lot to congressmen like Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO), who’s opposed to abortion even in the cases of rape and incest.

You recall Gardner also accused his pro-choice Democratic opponent, Betsy Markey, of distracting voters by discussing abortion issues during the last election.

Fortunately, the Ft. Collins Coloradoan pressed Gardner on the issues anyway, even though he didn’t want to talk about them.

And media outlets in Denver, despite Ken Buck’s wishes, did the same thing, and pressed Buck on them, particularly at the end of the campaign.

(I wrote a guest opinion in the Coloradoan today thanking the newspaper for asking Gardner about abortion anyway, and laying his views out there, even at a time when most people didn’t identify these issues as “top of mind” in polls.)

That’s what journalists are supposed to do, look at the big picture–because any person in his or her right mind, not to mention any professional reporter, knows that a U.S. Congressman will inevitably face votes on social issues, like abortion and gay marriage.

And that’s what’s come to pass today in the U.S. Congress.

Tweet
Share

Comments

43 thoughts on “Abortion didn’t matter in the last election? Take a look at Congress now”

  1. now that they are in charge in so many places, it’s impossible to pretend that what they care about is jobs, jobs, jobs. They aren’t devoting any energy to creating jobs and it shows.

    They can’t very well run on what they’re really doing which is being corporate lackeys devoted to carrying out their masters’ orders for the completion of the transfer of all significant wealth and political power from the middle class to themselves. No good for bumper stickers.

    That means back to abortion and God, Gays and Guns and wishing this whole Wisconsin (Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona death panels) thing would blow over because too many people are starting to pay attention to the thieves making off with all their stuff.  

    1. The GOP’s Big Government social radicals often aren’t real conservatives. They believe in using Big Government to impose their religious beliefs and values on the rest of us, and they believe in using Big Government subsidies and tax credits to advance whatever behavioral or economic causes they support.

      This is why I fear the Big Government Democrats have a good chance of taking back the Colorado House in 2012. They also have a good chance of winning Colorado’s nine electoral votes for Obama. If Ted Harvey becomes the chair of the state GOP, Colorado Democrats might win big in 2012.

      Having said that, I think it’s also wrong to use tax dollars to pay for abortions in this country and abroad. Planned Parenthood does a lot of good things, but it’s governed and run by people who misuse tax dollars, employ people who help law breakers and aren’t very smart politically.

      The UN is corrupt, run by dictators and should be shut down. And the US tax dollars should not support any UN program or any of its rapists in Africa and around the world. If Europeans and American liberals want to control population growth, they can contribute to NGOs that are dedicated to that cause.  

      1. I wasn’t aware that the anti-choice crowd felt so strongy in favor of supporting NGOs dedicated to promoting safe effective family planning.  As for all that other stuff about us rape loving, abortion happy liberals, I must have missed a whole bunch of memos.

      2. The R’s who run the R party are “Big Government social radicals” and are not “real conservatives.”

        During election season it’s so hard to tell the difference, because they all claim to be real conservatives.  Is there some way to identify the Big Government social radical type R’s from the real conservatives?  And, of course, I mean before we elect them and they get to screw us with all their radical social bs.

        BTW- does that make them “CINOs”?  

            1. How can de-funding (taking govt OUT of the picture, thereby making govt SMALLER) be pro-big govt? It IS about fiscal responsibility, reducing spending and getting the govt out of my life-exactly the platform that the conservative movement put forth this year. Follow the ball.

              It’s not ANTI-CHOICE…it it PRO-LIFE and ANTI-DEATH. Get it right.

              Roe-v-Wade is in the hands of the Supreme Court and is in no jeopardy of being overturned by congress or the senate at this point. Sounds like the left are the conspiracy theorists.

              Spin.

    2. Actually, BC, I disagree about the GOP lack of focus on jobs.  Here’s the plan:

      1.  Cut billions from federal, state and local budgets

      2.  Lay off hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, firefighters, librarians, etc.

      3.  Cut unemployment benefits

      4.  Force said ex-public workers to take housekeeping, dishwashing, lawn care jobs, thus displacing immigrant workers

      5.  Immigrants then leave the country

      Simple and effective as long as they just keep up the Luntz-mantra

  2. During the Bennet/Buck campaign, many of us kept running into posters on here (I can think of one in particular) that told us how unimportant women’s rights were to the average voter and how Bennet was shooting himself in the foot by pounding away at Buck’s far right stances. I remember specifically a post claiming that Buck wouldn’t have any say when it came to abortion, so why even bother to talk about it? The naivety was breathtaking.

    Thankfully, Bennet’s volunteers and the Denver Post ignored that genius political view and hammered away.  

    1. All social issues always matter all the time. Always.

      There is never a good time to ignore civil rights. It’s always the right time to promote and defend life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      2. and she was pretty vocal about how stupid an idea it was to “worry” about candidates stances on abortion.

        I don’t think she was lying, just narrow sighted on what women voters care about it–like their ovaries. Buck lost his bid for the Senate because he lost Unaffilated women voters. And she was even more short sighted on what power Congress levies in the ongoing war against women’s rights.

        I’m pretty sure she doesn’t owe MADCO any money.

        Nice to see you’ve been granted a reprieve, though.  

        1. Daft Punk is the blog doctor, right? There are too many d’s and I’m easily confused.

          Whoever, thanks to them for constantly providing information about why it mattered outside of Roe v Wade. I used that. And well.

    3. From one of my diaries – JO had this to say:

      However, back to the points at hand. Assuming that harrydoby, having numbered them, intended the list to be in order of importance, that would be my first objection–the priorities. Beyond that:

      1. Abortion. Do you really think or fear that if Buck goes to Washington, that abortions will become illegal? Do you really think this to be a prospect with a Democratic president in a position to fill any court vacancies? I don’t. I do think this is an sort of sideshow issue meant to stir passions on both sides and to divert attention from the much, much more important issue at hand: the economy.

      2. whatever happened to him/her?

        I always felt his/her diaries contained some truth but never felt confident I really undersood what he/she was getting at. Except some pain. That came through.

        1. JO has come and gone a couple of times.  Always had an interesting view of politics.  

          I didn’t have to agree with JO to still appreciate the challenge (s)he always was ready to provide. Thoughtful opposing points of view, no matter where on the political spectrum sharpens and strengthen arguments, not weaken them.

          And then there’s the Beej.  

  3. I blogged pretty aggressively against Ken Buck and his far-right tea-party friends and got a lot of crap for it. H-man said constantly that women’s reproductive freedom was not a GOP issue these days. I knew that was a lie — as soon as the GOP gets in charge of anything, it comes up again for a vote. I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. Thank G-d Michael Bennet beat Ken Buck. And thank you to the wise voters of Colorado, too.  

  4. When Bennett won,  I did the mea culpa and told NC to take a well deserved victory lap.  But let us return to yesterday and my arguments and how that whole election went.

    First of all, my comments are made in lieu of any democratic

    real analysis of how the hell the party went from control of Congress and the White House to the biggest loss in over 60 years.  Focusing  on the Bennett/Hickenlooper win is not an analysis.

    Now, as I recall the debate on this blog was not about defunding Planned Parenthood, ( a legitimate issue) it was about the Personhood amendment and outlawing abortion and the always popular “when does life begin?” The real question is if Buck had not wet his pants on Meet the PRess, would Bennet have won?

    If either side of the issue gave a rat’s ass about either women’s rights or the rights’ of the unborn or even why the two are poised as adversarial, they would be fighting for federal constitutional amendments  to either outlaw abortion or make it legal without restrictions.  But no one wants to do that, because it is a political issue, used by both sides.  It is not a moral issue.

    Now, my concern during the election was this:

    1) The abortion issue brings out the right wing, as well as women rights advocates. I felt it would bring out more of the former than the later.

    2) I was afraid that the bishops would drop the a bomb…and tell catholics they could NOT vote for anyone supporting abortion rights…on pain of being denied communion or otherwise publicly embarrassed or even excommunicated…..those threats worked in Ohio in 2004 and were a factor in the republican win.

    3) My major concern with the SEnate race was what would happen to the Supreme Court if the repubs took control.

    Lets see where we stand at the end of the Colorado legislative session and redistricting is done.  Let’s see what finally comes out of Congress on the budget resolutions.

    1. “If either side of the issue gave a rat’s ass about either women’s rights or the rights’ of the unborn or even why the two are poised as adversarial, they would be fighting for federal constitutional amendments  to either outlaw abortion or make it legal without restrictions.”

      Newsflash, Dwyer: Abortion is legal. Ever heard of Roe vs. Wade?

      1. If abortion is legal, then what the hell is the complaint about?

        Abortion is an absolute civil right ONLY during the first trimester.  A constitutional amendment would take away the right of the states/federal gov to place restrictions on the procedure in subsequent trimesters.  That is why I wrote:

        make it legal without restrictions.”

        Such an amendment would stop the fighting and REMOVE abortion as a wedge/money raising issue.  Which is why I believe it will never even be proposed; ditto for the other side’s amendment.

        You wrote a beautiful diary in praise of midwives, and described your own difficulties.  I respect that.  I don’t see that that has anything to do with my statements,which I stand by.

        1. And, I beg your pardon, but I do care about real women and real families who have to make real choices — difficult choices. Your insistence on absolutes (if we don’t fight hard for abortion with no restrictions, than we must not care about the people involved) is disturbing, Dwyer. There are a lot of political issues I care about. I write as often as I can. I cannot fight constantly on each and every issue.

          Dwyer, you seem determined to make a woman’s right to be the master of her own body a NON-issue. It’s a real issue — for Democratic, Independent, unaffiliated, and Republican women alike.

          1. that Bennet’s campaign team did use it as a wedge issue, and they were successful. It was not unlike Buck using the Tea Party to his advantage when it worked for him, and then trying (unsuccessfully) to distance them when he didn’t need them anymore.

            I really do care about a woman’s right to choose. When I worked at a crisis center in the 80’s, I saw far too many 14 year old girls with babies, and parents who didn’t give a sh!t about them. Those girls deserved better.

            1. And when I worked in a Third World country, I saw women with babies dying in their arms for lack of medical treatment. I saw women cry when they realized they were pregnant because it meant that they would have to wean the child at breast and they had no way to feed that child, let alone feed the one that was coming.  

              In a professional capacity, I witnessed the saline induction of an abortion at 17 weeks.

              WTF do you say I don’t care?  Just tell me how you link your passion to securing the rights of women and/or fetuses?  

              I don’t see it.  I see posturing and political wedge issues.

              The only way to secure rights is ultimately to anchor them in the constitution.  And if anybody anyplace is doing that, I would like to know.

              As for this thread, I don’t want to do this any more, okay nc?

              Go pick on someone else, I don’t have the stomach for it.

              1. 1) Where I said you don’t care.

                2) Where I was picking on you.

                Your words, which I was responding to:

                “If either side of the issue gave a rat’s ass about either women’s rights or the rights’ of the unborn or even why the two are poised as adversarial, they would be fighting for federal constitutional amendments  to either outlaw abortion or make it legal without restrictions.”

                I think a competition between who cares more about this issue is pretty silly, don’t you think, Dwyer? I appreciate your examples above. They must have been heartbreaking to watch.

                I’ve stated pretty clearly I have had ambivalent feelings about abortion as a pregnancy continues. I think there is a huge difference between an early abortion, or an abortion when a woman’s life or her family’s well-being are in danger, and an end-of-term abortion for convenience. Fortunately, the latter statistically almost never happens. In any case, I personally feel that as the fetus matures, we need to be aware of the possibility of pain, and always be compassionate. This is just my opinion from my own gut — it is not politically correct necessarily, and certainly does not represent any particular religious view. So, no, I do not fight for “under any and all circumstances”. I DO fight for a woman’s right to make that decision alone, in consultation with her doctor. There is no doubt that the woman’s life is a life — that much we all know, and we can all agree on. I trust women to be smart enough to know what to do.

                I would love to see you blog your experiences in third world countries, Dwyer. You have a perspective we all could benefit from. I hope you will.  

                1. Please consider blogging on how you see a constitutional amendment improving things. I am not necessarily against it — I need more information and a deeper understanding of where you are coming from. By saying those of us who aren’t fighting for it are somehow disingenuous or politically opportunistic is simply not true — your arguments would go farther if you didn’t insult us first.  

                2. Please consider blogging on how you see a constitutional amendment improving things. I am not necessarily against it — I need more information and a deeper understanding of where you are coming from. By saying those of us who aren’t fighting for it are somehow disingenuous or politically opportunistic is simply not true — your arguments would go farther if you didn’t insult us first.  

    2. You are naive.  (H-Man was a lying asshole shill – with Ken Buck’s jizz on his chin)

      Neither of the amendments you propose has a snowball’s chance of passing, and both sides know that.  Pretending that makes policy issues around abortion irrelevant when newly empowered Republican legislatures invent new ways  to restrict access to abortion on a daily basis is past naive, it’s dangerous.  These restrictions lead to later more dangerous abortions, psychological coercion of women, added financial cost, or women carrying pregnancies to term against their wills.

      The argument during the campaign (at least as far as I participated here) was to illustrate areas in which these seemingly marginal (in your estimation) policy matters demonstrated the effect of having a pro or anti-choice Senator, irrespective of Constitutional or Supreme court meddling.  These differences are real in women’s lives, and are important matters of policy, your naive viewpoint notwithstanding.

      As for your concerns:

      1) Didn’t seem to work out that way.

      2) They tell Catholics they can’t use birth control.  How’s that working out?

      3)The Supreme Court is important (and lower courts perhaps more so), but eliminating Federal Title X funding for contraception for low income women is a bit more concrete, no?

  5. As a veteran of the pro-choice movement from the 80’s and 90’s when the issue couldn’t have been hotter in electoral politics, I learned that anyone who is passionate about being “pro-life” will always look for an opportunity to legislate their views.

    That said, fair minded people can disagree with me about abortion rights, but I always found those who were more ambivalent didn’t think it was their place to get in the middle of a private decision between a woman, her partner and their doctor.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

96 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!