U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
July 28, 2014 11:15 AM UTC

Other co-sponsors of Life at Conception Act say it aims to enact personhood at federal level

  • 35 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Oops. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Cory Gardner.
Cory Gardner.

Senatorial candidate Cory Gardner's spokespeople are saying that a federal personhood bill cosponsored by Garder, called the Life at Conception Act, is not a real personhood bill because it "simply states that life begins at conception" and would not actually outlaw abortion or contraception.

If so, you'd expect other co-sponsors of the Life at Conception Act to agree with Gardner. But this is not the case.

After co-sponsoring the same Life at Conception Act in March, 2013, four months before Gardner signed on, Rep. Charles Boustany, (R-LA) issued a statement saying:

“As a Member of Congress, I take the cause of fighting for the unborn just as seriously. That’s why I cosponsored H.R. 1091, the Life at Conception Act. This bill strikes at the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision by declaring life at conception, granting constitutional protection to the unborn under the 14th Amendment.”

Boustany's comment comports with the actual factual language of the bill. It's an attempt to outlaw all abortion, even for rape and incest, via the 14th Amendment.

I've made multiple attempts to reach the House sponsor of Life at Conception Act, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), for his take on his own bill, but I have yet to hear back. [Hint to a reporter who might be reading this: Would you please give him a call?]

But Sen. Rand Paul is the Senate sponsor of the Life at Conception Act, which is identical to the bill co-sponsored by Gardner. And this is how Paul described his own bill in March of last year.

"The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known-that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward." [BigMedia emphasis]

In January of this year, Paul released a statement saying:

"Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, 55 million abortions have taken place in America. The question remains, can a civilization long endure if it does not respect Life? It is the government's duty to protect life, liberty, and property, but primarily and most importantly, a government must protect Life," Sen. Paul said. "In order to protect the unborn from the very moment Life begins, I introduced the Life at Conception Act. Today, our nation wavers and our moral compass is adrift. Only when America chooses, remembers and restores her respect for life will we re-discover our moral bearings and truly find our way."

You can argue that Jordan's personhood bill–and its Senate counterpart–would lead to a major court fight with an uncertain outcome. And anti-choice crusaders have different views about the most effective way to enact abortion bans. But the clear intent of the Life at Conception Act is to establish personhood as federal law, as co-sponsors and sponsors of the bill have stated.

Tweet
Share

Comments

35 thoughts on “Other co-sponsors of Life at Conception Act say it aims to enact personhood at federal level”

  1. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan both ignore the pro-abortion position of their spiritual mother, Ayn Rand, who said:

    Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.

    It would be fun to ask Cory Gardner about Ayn Rand.

      1. 1. IRS targets Obama's enemies: The IRS targeted conservative and pro-Israel groups prior to the 2012 election. Questions are being raised about why this occurred, who ordered it, whether there was any White House involvement and whether there was an initial effort to hide who knew about the targeting and when.

        2. Benghazi: This is actually three scandals in one: The failure of administration to protect the Benghazi mission; the changes made to the talking points in order to suggest the attack was motivated by an anti-Muslim video; and the refusal of the White House to say what President Obama did the night of the attack.

        3. Keeping an eye on The Associated Press: The Justice Department performed a massive cull of Associated Press reporters' phone records as part of a leak investigation.

        4. Rosengate: The Justice Department suggested that Fox News reporter James Rosen is a criminal for reporting about classified information and subsequently monitored his phones and emails.

        5. Potential Holder perjury I: Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress he had never been associated with "potential prosecution" of a journalist for perjury when in fact he signed the affidavit that termed Rosen a potential criminal.

        6. The ATF "Fast and Furious" scheme: Federal agencies allowed weapons from U.S. gun dealers to "walk" across the border into the hands of Mexican drug dealers. The ATF summarily lost track of scores of those weapons, many of which were used in crimes, including the December 2010 killing of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

        7. Potential Holder perjury II: Holder told Congress in May 2011 that he had just recently heard about the Fast and Furious gun walking scheme when there is evidence he may have known much earlier.

        8. Sebelius demands payment: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from companies HHS might regulate. The money would be used to help her sign up uninsured Americans for Obamacare.

        9. The Pigford scandal: An Agriculture Department effort that started as an attempt to compensate black farmers who had been discriminated against by the agency but evolved into a gravy train delivering several billion dollars in cash to thousands of additional minority and female farmers who probably didn't face discrimination.

        10. GSA gone wild: The General Services Administration in 2010 held an $823,000 training conference in Las Vegas, featuring a clown and a mind readers. Resulted in the resignation of the GSA administrator.

        11. Veterans Affairs in Disney World: The agency wasted more than $6 million on two conferences in Orlando. An assistant secretary was fired.

        12. Sebelius violates the Hatch Act: A U.S. special counsel determined that Sebelius violated the Hatch Act when she made "extemporaneous partisan remarks" during a speech in her official capacity last year. During the remarks, Sebelius called for the election of the Democratic candidate for governor of North Carolina.

        13. Solyndra: Republicans charged the Obama Administration funded and promoted its poster boy for green energy despite warning signs the company was headed for bankruptcy. The administration also allegedly pressed Solyndra to delay layoff announcements until after the 2010 midterm elections.

        14. AKA Lisa Jackson: Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used the name "Richard Windsor" when corresponding by email with other government officials, drawing charges she was trying to evade scrutiny.

        15. The New Black Panthers: The Justice Department was accused of using a racial double standard in failing to pursue a voter intimidation case against Black Panthers who appeared to be menacing voters at a polling place in 2008 in Philadelphia.

        16. Waging war all by myself: Obama may have violated the Constitution and both the letter and the spirit of the War Powers Resolution by attacking Libya without Congressional approval.

        17. Biden bullies the press: Vice President Biden's office has repeatedly interfered with coverage, including forcing a reporter to wait in a closet, making a reporter delete photos, and editing pool reports.

        18. AKPD not A-OK: The administration paid millions to the former firm of then-White House adviser David Axelrod, AKPD Message and Media, to promote passage of Obamacare. Some questioned whether the firm was hired to help pay Axelrod $2 million AKPD owed him.

        19. Sestak, we'll take care of you: Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used Bill Clinton as an intermediary to probe whether former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) would accept a prominent, unpaid White House advisory position in exchange for dropping out of the 2010 primary against former Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).

        20. I'll pass my own laws: Obama has repeatedly been accused of making end runs around Congress by deciding which laws to enforce, including the decision not to deport illegal immigrants who may have been allowed to stay in the United States had Congress passed the "Dream Act."

        3. All of which are Republican-manufactured scandals.

          None of the are real or juicy scandals.

          These are scandals that the Republicans pulled out of their asses and threw it on the wall and see if it sticks – unfortunately, none of them did.

    1. Gosh, Moderatus, it's great that you agree so strongly with Ayn Rand that abortion is awesome, but women  will get abortions – you don't need to advertise them quite so strongly.  I think it was Gray who said that Boulder Polsters get paid in gluten-free bread and BOGO abortion coupons. You might consider a similar marketing strategy. 

      I mean, I'm pro-choice, but I don't feel like a flashing neon sign is needed on my local Planned Parenthood branch. If they do need one, I'm sure they'll look to your edgy design skills. 

      1. I don't thiink he's employed by anyone, but living in the basement, fat and lazy, in his mom's house. With Cheetos on his hands…

        You know, something like this:

         

        (And Robb should recognize the creator too)

  8. Yeah, the 'New Black Panthers' (all three of them) are an Obama scandal.  Dude, you're a joke. And your desperation makes you even less appealing, if that is possible.  

      2. Apparently you have chosen to overlook all the articles about white -true the vote guys- intimidating voters in the last election. Typical

        1. Those damn facts keep getting in the way of a good childish rant and that phony list – that must be from the gop crooks and liars division. Something right wing fools can copy and paste.

      6. Ummm… the incident that got the attention was in a majority black precinct and they were trying, pretty unsuccessfully to intimidate black voters.

        1. Yeah, you and facts.  Did you not see the picture of the scary black men?????  

          Next you are going to suggest that the kids truning themselves in at the border are not hardened drug cantalopes.  

  9. OK. We all know that there's no substantive difference between home grown and federal personhood. We all know what granting fertilized eggs full rights means. We all know Gardner's attempt to have it both ways is pathetic. Do we need to keep going over this again and again? 

    For once I agree with the Modster program's little cartoon. We all know that nobody who supports choice will vote for the guy but there are plenty of other issues people should be aware of so more people will have more reasons not to vote for him. Next!

      1. Dems don't need a message machine. I'm sure Udall supporters will have no trouble coming up with all kinds of things to say. There's so much to choose from.

  10. The main difference between state personhood bills and the federal legislation is the 14th Amendment.  One of the goals of the very conservative Republicans is to redefine some of the terms of the 14th amendment.  For example, "equal protection" of the laws should only include those who were speciffically listed in the amendment and women and 18 year olds who were given certain voting rights by subsequent amendments.  Such legislation could also revese public accommodation federal laws and allow the states to determine where private property rights would triumph over civil rights legislation.  I am not a lawyer, but the argument is made that the wording of the amendment allows Congress to pass legislation implementing the special goals of the amendment.  I do not believe that the President would have veto power over such legislation. That is the difference between state and federal legislation.

    If the republicans take control of the Senate, it is possible that the "Federal Conception" Act would be voted on by simple majorities in the House and Senate and pass into law.  How the SCOTUS would consider the legislation is anyone's guess.

    I have said before, and I will repeat it, the Republicans, even with a majority in Congress have never voted on legislation to ban abortion, except for resolution back in 1982.  They have never even voted on "life" resolutions/legislation in

    committees when they held majority.  I don't think they will now. I think it is an empty gesture.  

    I think it critical that pro-choice advocates be knowledgeable and present legitimate arguments.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

62 readers online now

Newsletter

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