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
November 30, 2011 04:42 PM UTC

Sorry, Sen. Brown, any decent reporter knows abortion issues matter in Washington

  • 9 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

You wonder how anyone could read former Colorado Senator Hank Brown’s recent comments to Republicans, that a federal candidate’s position on abortion really doesn’t matter, and not think of failed Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck, Rep. Cory Gardner, and others who made similar statements, even though a quick Google search shows just how incredibly important abortion issues are in politics at the federal level.

Here’s what Brown said Thursday, as quoted by the Colorado Statesman:

Noting that he suspected most of the Republicans in the room disagreed with him about that — and adding that “Colorado, as you know, is the second-most pro-choice in the nation” — he argued that the [abortion] issue shouldn’t take center stage in elections because it’s out of the hands of politicians in Washington and just divides voters.

“The reality is, that’s a constitutional interpretation. The people you elect on that issue don’t have anything to do with that. You don’t vote on allowing or not allowing abortion in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. Congress. It’s never even an issue,” he said, adding that most Republicans agree the federal government shouldn’t subsidize abortions.

“So for Republican candidates, there isn’t any aspect of that pro-life, pro-choice issue that ever results in a vote in Congress,” he said, noting that in rare cases Senators can weigh in on the fitness of Supreme Court nominees and influence longer-term policy on abortion.

Thank goodness reporters in Colorado didn’t let Ken Buck get away with it when he said essentially the same thing last year.

Here’s a fine example of a reporter holding Buck’s feet to the fire in one televised debate, if you want to take a trip down memory lane. That’s just one case of Colorado journalists doing their jobs and mapping out the steps of the abortion buckpedal for citizens. The Ft. Collins Coloradoan didn’t let Gardner forget his stances on abortion either.

If you look at what happens in Congress, you can see that reporters are obviously right that these issues are not just abstract theoretical distractions, like Hank Brown would have you believe.

They make a big difference in politics as practiced in the Beltway, where you can’t predict what votes will be taken for what reason and when.

Remember that Obamacare almost fell apart over abortion wedge issues, with Democrats and Republicans falling on both sides.

And in March, abortion issues, including a dispute over funding for Planned Parenthood, nearly shut down the federal government, as negotiations stalled, with Gardner and Tipton among those digging in their feet on abortion. Also on the disputed chopping block were federal funds for international organizations that provide women’s health care in the world’s most impoverished countries, where the absence of these services translates into hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.

Maybe some people don’t want to take it seriously that the national GOP platform calls not only for an anti-abortion amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also for legislation changing the definition of a person under the 14th Amendment to include fertilized eggs, or zygotes.

But how can you not take this seriously, given the strange unpredictability of abortion politics and that the GOP has a shot at controlling both houses of Congress and the White House in about a year?

Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Cory Gardner, Mike Coffman, Doug Lamborn, Scott Tipton, or any other federal candidate, can’t say they favor personhood and then expect it to mean nothing to reporters. Sorry.

Reporters know that one of their most basic functions is to air out issues so citizens can understand where the candidates stand and what they’ll do if elected.

And so, Hank Brown, with due respect, journalists were right in 2010 not to accept the GOP post-primary cries that abortion issues mattered so little compared to jobs that they need not be discussed. And they should continue to matter a lot to journalists today and every day.

Comments

9 thoughts on “Sorry, Sen. Brown, any decent reporter knows abortion issues matter in Washington

  1. The “partial birth abortion” ban that bars one procedure (intaxt D&X when the fetus is in breech position), as of early in the second trimester, despite the opinion of a slew of doctors that in certain situations, that procedure is the safest for avoiding internal bleeding and infection. The Supreme Court struck down a similar Nebraska law in 2000 but upheld this law in 2007 because O’Connor was replaced by Alito on the Supreme Court.

    So Brown is provably full of shit on this.  

  2. This is NOT what Americans are going to the polls for in 2012. This election is about the economy. The only place this will be a factor is where Democrats try to change the subject.

    The personhood supporters are honorable but politically misguided. They are being used by liberal Democrats, ironically to impede the pro life agenda!

      1. If the supporters of this initiative care more about making a splash than they do supporting candidates who will actually move the ball on this issue. I respect them, but there are days I wish they would be smarter about their long term goals.

        1. That’s not what you said.

          Go back and read your own words.

          If it’s not what you meant, then next time take a little more care with the bullshit you sling around.

  3. There is no doubt that abortion and other push button social issues have been presented or passed by Congress but I don’t believe that is what Sen. Brown is talking about. He has always been pro choice and a supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment for women.

    What he was trying to get across to the Republicans in the audience is the fact the Party can’t continue to nominate right wing fanatics on social issues and expect to win. He was attempting to get the rank and file Republicans who control the nominating process to toss the litmus tests they have imposed on candidates. I praise him for taking that position even though they won’t listen to him.

    1. What he said was

      “…there isn’t any aspect of that pro-life, pro-choice issue that ever results in a vote in Congress…”

      which is simply not true.

      You are probably right about what Sen. Brown was trying to get across, but he should do that without lying.

      The topic of the post was urging reporters to not let Sen. Brown or anyone get away with saying things that are not true.  

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

91 readers online now

Newsletter

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