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%
November 21, 2011 11:33 PM UTC
27 Comments
I thought that in 2010, the amendment would increase the republican turnout and could threaten the democratic candidates for governor and senate. I was proven wrong.
However, I have not seen a breakdown of other races in which republicans did very well to determine if the conservative voters turned out because of the amendment and it helped to elect other republicans.
I would think that both tipton and gardner would be helped by a large vote stimulated by the personhood amendment.
Seriously, this lost by an almost three to one margin twice in this state. It lost by 16 points in the most anti-abortion state in the country. Why would they be helped by this?
of religious fanatics has for any and every thing they do . . . eternal reward, laying up treasure in heaven.
Because it brings lunatics out to the polls to vote.
It’s cheaper than GOTV.
And once those lunatics show up to vote, who do you think they’re going to vote for? Obama?
Good way to get free voter participation.
It would be nice if Democrats had a similar social issue to bring people to the polls in droves;
It’s called the personhood amendment. See below.
Even in districts where Republicans won by double digits, this still lost by double digits (someone might want to fact check me on this, because I don’t have the data readily available.) Maybe it’s turning out Republicans to vote against it?
If anything, it gives pro-choice groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood something to fight against, raise money for, etc. Conservatives are by no means galvanized by these measures, but liberals sure are.
whether the kind of voters who would otherwise stay home if this weren’t on the ballot are going to vote for Romney, who is notoriously slippery on this issue. Dwyer is wrong, it’s Democrats and pro-choice voters of all affiliations who will be mobilized in meaningful numbers by yet another chance to vote against personhood.
If it seems that I am advocating a position, I am not..
I am trying to determine what would be the political strategy behind putting this amendment on the ballot for the third time. What I am arguing, as Salzman suggests, is that there is a political component to this.
I just can’t figure out what it is.
The political component is that the proponents of personhood don’t care about the political component, so they keep trying to get it passed year in and year out. There’s not a real political strategy behind the proponents trying to get it on the ballot. They are, for lack of a better word, zealots.
However, despite its unpopularity, politicians who are running for higher office–specifically, Congressional candidates–have taken the strange position of supporting something that the people of Colorado have voted down by a huge percentage even in a year that saw Republican gains at a statewide level. That is the political component.
They needed two go-rounds and some squirrely signatures last time.
Have you seen the new language? It’s not easily found, but the best I could find at seeing the whole thing was here:
What does this mean? Who would sign this petition outside a supermarket?
And RSB, here’s the data you were looking for: Conejos county came the closest at 55-45 against.
People will be pissed if they have to see this on the ballot again. I’m of mixed thinking. It recruits activists, raises money, and exposes the Republican base as dangerously out of step with reality.
I don’t understand that language.
About seeing it again – TABOR was 0-8 before it won. ANd these guys are at least as motivated as those guys. They are not worried about the politics, though Jason is correct that everyone else should be. The supporters aren’t worried about the intrusion into personal lives. They’re like the Blues Brothers, on a mission…a mission
Always after that elusive woman who doesn’t want to be a breeding slave.
The full text is on the Personhood Colorado front page. It’s longer than your quote above but ColoradoPols’ commenting system seems to not seem to allow me to post the whole thing in the comments.
It specifically prohibits abortion in cases of rape and incest.
The amendment also defines “human being” as “any member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development.” I seems to me that sperm is a stage of development of the species.
And the birth control and in vitro fertilization sections offer a lot more precision than usual on which forms are prohibited.
I would love to have some doctors chime in on how this would effect in vitro fertilization and which birth control would be considered murder.
So the innocent zygotes of female rapists don’t face the same protection? There’s something going on here and it stinks!
That’s new since last night.
This certainly improves on some of the medical objections to the last version of personhood, but it’s still a steaming pile of crap. You don’t need to be a doctor to see a problem with 3(d).
As for chiming, hormonal birth control methods and all IUDs alter the uterine lining or endometrium, making it unfavorable for the embryonic implantation necessary for pregnancy to occur post-conception. Most hormonal contraceptives primarily work to prevent ovulation and sperm transit in the upper genital tract. Because all of these methods of birth control do occasionally fail in the real world it is clear that conception can occur, and the endometrial alteration represents a backup that prevents implantation (i.e. “KILLS A PERSON”) so say goodbye to pills, rings, patches, IUDs, Depo-Provera, Implanon, and emergency contraception because of their potential embryotoxic effects.
I’m not an infertility specialist, but by my best understanding of the IVF process, multiple eggs are harvested and fertilized in vitro. After a certain point (2 days? 32 cells?) the embryos are examined by an embryologist, and the best ones are chosen for insertion into the woman. As ~70% of conceptions do not result in babies born, it is clear that the rate of abnormal conceptions is significant, and even the normal ones do not all implant. Current ethics suggest no more than two embryos be transferred per attempt. This leads to an inevitable surplus of embryos which will be created; some of them may not even be viable, but they will be capable of further division until their inherent abnormalities prevent their further survival. Some will be totally normal, and can be frozen for future use. Parents at high risk for certain genetic abnormalities, whether due to age, ethnicity, or family history may pursue pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), in which one or two cells are plucked off the developing embryo and tested for the at-risk condition, so as not to implant an abnormal embryo. Such a protocol could not continue under the latest personhood initiative.
You couldn’t discard the abnormal embryos. Could you freeze them indefinitely? The only way IVF could continue is only fertilizing two eggs at a time (freezing the rest) and hoping they both led to high quality embryos. If not, you can thaw more eggs, but egg freezing technology is in its infancy, compared to embryo freezing, and long term data don’t exist. This is certainly more expensive and time-consuming for patients, particularly considering that Colorado’s world class fertility labs see patients from all over the country (and world), and you’re still left with the problem of what to do with the abnormal embryos.
As for the rest of the caveats designed to assuage concerns re: treatment of miscarriages, ectopics, etc., there’s still way to many grey areas as written. Legal “intention” is way too fraught with interpretation for any doctor to feel comfortable when murder charges are the alternative. Medical treatment will inevitably be delayed as legal opinions are sought. Again, the question of intention arises with miscarriages. Every patient will be a suspect if the local DA chooses. Nothing precludes miscarriage patients from being investigated for self-administration of abortion drugs, and forensic vagina inspector will still be a growth industry.
The bottom line is that personhood still represents the insertion of government, courts and lawyers between doctors and patients, and will outlaw the most common methods of contracepetion which more than 95% of women rely on at some point in their life.
In case Dwyer or anyone else misses that link, here are the numbers–the percent represents the margin by which Amendment 62 lost:
For typically conservative counties:
Republicans may have turned out, but many of them voted no on it.
Meanwhile, in typically Democratic counties, it was even more lopsided:
Plus, and this may be the most crucial point, in swing counties it got walloped too:
Starting to get the picture?
The only other statistics that would be interesting is how did the total republican vote in 2010 compare to the total republican vote in the off year election of 2006?
As for the technical language; the official position of the catholic church (I know, I know,ignored by almost all catholics) defines personhood as beginning at conception and continuing until natural death. Again, the official philosophy of the church bans all artificial contraception, all abortion (including life of the mother) and all artificial forms of fertilization, and the morning after pill. The only reason for mentioning this is that the language of the Personhood amendment will not be totally foreign to catholics.
which would require feeding, protecting, clothing, immunizing and educating all children
157 valid signatures.
do is no one’s business but mine.
I’ve covered this movement since 2007. Near as I can tell, Personhood USA and Personhood Education have never filed required Form 990 with the IRS.
If you want a question the media should be asking. Here’s some whoppers:
Where’s the money?
Who is contributing?
How much is the staff pocketing?
What other organizations and individuals are receiving money?
Who are the vendors and do they have ties to the staff and donors?
Who is auditing the books?
Why have there been two missed IRS filings by Personhood USA and one for its education arm?
I assume this represents violation of both state and federal tax and campaign laws.
Here we’d be looking for investigations by Gessler or Suthers; not likely. Federally, Geithner’s IRS, and Holder’s AG office have the power.
How do you put them on the case?
This is a federal issue.
The state has no jurisdiction, other than the political campaign reporting which deserves closer scrutiny. I’ve called them out on a couple of big discrepancies, like not disclosing in-kind contributions and failing to report expenses.
Unfortunately, the IRS is notoriously slow with enforcement orders. It almost always requires a lawsuit. Which the scofflaw not-for-profits know all too well. They skate on reporting until someone makes a stink. The other strategy is to dissolve the organization and then pop up under a new name to continue the cycle of unaccountability.