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
September 27, 2010 04:28 PM UTC

Like Buck, Tancredo unsure what Amendment 62 would do

  • 32 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The BigMedia question of the week is, are any of the 33 candidates who endorsed the Personhood Initiative, (the Personhood 33) other than Ken Buck, clued into the fact that the measure would ban stuff like the Pill and IUDs?

You recall last week Buck withdrew his endorsement of Personhood, Amendment 62, saying he didn’t understand that the measure would ban common forms of birth control (even though his campaign understood previously that the measure would ban IUDs and at least some forms of the Pill.)

Over the weekend, to fill in the journalistic gap, I asked a few of the other best-known members of the Personhood 33 if they knew their Initiative would ban common forms of birth control, and if Buck’s decision to un-endorse changes anything for them.

Nate Strauch, spokesman for Personhood endorser Dan Maes, said of his boss, “He has not changed his opinion on the matter.”

Fellow gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo, also one of the Personhood 33 told me “nothing has changed there,” regarding his endorsement of Amendment 62.

Asked if this means he supports banning common forms of birth control like the Pill and IUDs, Tancredo said, “I must admit, on the rest of this stuff, I have to look into it.” (I’ll check back with him later and report back.)

Cory Gardner, running for CD 4, is another high-profile GOP candidate who’s thrown his backing behind Personhood. His campaign didn’t return my call over the weekend, but the Ft. Collins Coloradoan reported Sunday that Gardner supports Amendment 62.

Asked by the Coloradoan if he opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest or if the mother’s life is in danger, Gardner replied: “I’m pro-life, and I believe abortion is wrong.”

I’ll try to find out if Gardner, unlike Buck, understands that Amendment 62 would ban common forms of birth control.

I’ll be calling other members of the Personhood 33 as well. So stay tuned for more exciting birth-control news that’s being ignored elsewhere.

Tweet
Share

Comments

32 thoughts on “Like Buck, Tancredo unsure what Amendment 62 would do”

  3. Since it seems pretty obvious that the people who drafted 62 have no clue what their proposal means and wonderfully ignorant of the science, I suppose we can give Buck and Tancredo a bit of a break for not really understanding it, either.

    But now they have assumed a responsibility to figure it out and tell us whether or not they support it.

      1. Good point and valid.  Personally I think there are an awful lot of things these guys (and other candidates as well) don’t understand and should actually study before they hold themselves out as being competent to make decisions that will affect society for a very long time.

    1. Is to get to the Supreme Court and get Roe overturned.

      If this were a neutral to liberal court, you wouldn’t be seeing them on the ballot.  As long as there is an activist right-wing Court, they will come back time and time again.

    2. Like it a whole lot.

      GIGG: God, IUD’s, Guns and Gays.

      You can have my gay guy when you tear my IUD from my God. Or … No, this is getting too complex. Obviously, it’s getting late. And the vokida, you know.

  6. While perhaps not as interesting as abortions and anchor babies, the Colorado Bar Association issued a press release pointing out that “The word “person” appears more than 20,000 times in the Colorado Revised Statutes and in Colorado regulations and municipal ordinances.”  The press release stated the Bar Association’s opposition to 62 “solely based on the ramifications such an amendment would have on the laws … of Colorado.”  Two examples of the impact of Amendment 62, provided to me by someone else, follow:

    1. Certain Colorado statutes are predicated upon the population of a county. In order to make an accurate count of the number of “persons” in a county, will a determination have to be made whether every female of child-bearing age in every county is pregnant? How will this be determined short of a pregnancy test?  Privacy issues?

    2. The United States Constitution provides that “no person . . . shall be . . . deprived of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law.” Can a pregnant woman be imprisoned unless the person, as defined in 62, is given “due process of law”? Perhaps in every criminal case involving a pregnant woman, a guardian ad litem will have to be appointed for the person, and unless the Amendment 62 person is found guilty of some crime, how can that person be imprisoned along with the mother?  To take it a step further, assume a pregnant woman and a man are both involved in the commission of a crime; if the pregnant mother cannot be imprisoned because she is carrying a person who cannot be deprived of liberty without due process, would the man have a claim that he cannot be imprisoned on equal protection grounds?

    Just food for thought.  Answers anyone?

    2. She is hoping for 62 to pass because she is prepared to file an action to certify as a class all the frozen embryos in Colorado and file a class action lawsuit to have them carried to term and birthed.

      As a separate but related part of her action she intends to publicize to all the ski resorts and other tourist destinations that for any conception that occurs on Colorado, she is prepared to represent that person pro bono to make whatever claims that person would like to make- citizenship, personal injury, whatever.

    3. From the Colorado Coroner’s Association

      The types of deaths that are reported to the Coroner:

      No physician is in attendance.

      All unexplained deaths (deaths that occur in a healthy individual.)

      The Colorado Law is specific that the body of a deceased person may not be moved from its place of death until the Coroner arrives at the scene and performs the investigation.

      Bring on the miscarriage police and the forensic vagina inspectors.

  7. You may well be right, however, that should be part of the schtick or the comment and it is not.  Absent that explanation, the political ads are scare tactics and IMHO are going to backfire.

  8. going to post something interesting about the Democrats?  How about we discuss Betsy Markey’s support of cap & trade?  How about her votes on health control?

    Why don’t we talk about Bennet’s voting history?  We could talk about whether we should send him home after he voted for Obamacare even knowing we didn’t want it. He said he’s willing to lose his job to vote for nationalized health control.  Do you think we should send him home?

    What about his rubber stamping?  Shall we talk about what a Rubberstamp Man he is?

    3. Markey voted against cap and trade.

      The two Colorado polls closest to the Congressional vote showed that Coloradans supported a public option 53%+.  

      And when individual elements of the health care reform were described, support was north of 60-65%.   Though it is also true that when the question just asked about “Obamacare” support was less than 50%.

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

84 readers online now

Newsletter

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