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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

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

52%↑

48%↓

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 21, 2022 10:08 AM UTC

Colorado Republicans Vote NO on Contraception Protections

  • 16 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Earlier this week we wrote about how all three of Colorado’s Republican Members of Congress — Reps. Lauren “Q*Bert” Boebert, Ken Buck, and Doug Lamborn — voted NO on legislation intended to protect same-sex and interracial marriage. This is an important issue now because of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, in which Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas both indicated that the legal logic involved in that decision might lead to removing protections for same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and even contraception.

Well, guess what happened today?

That’s right — Boebert, Buck, and Lamborn all voted NO on a bill seeking to protect the right to contraception. From The Washington Post:

The House passed legislation largely along party lines Thursday that would federally protect an individual’s access to contraception and ensure health-care providers are not penalized for prescribing it, a response to the Supreme Court decision last month that reversed federal protections for abortion access…

…The support for marriage equality by House Republicans on Tuesday shook the Senate into action, spurring Democratic leaders to shift their tone and announce that they will consider that bill on the Senate floor soon. But it’s unclear whether the Senate will also bring up the contraception legislation.

We haven’t seen a rationale for these votes other this perfectly ridiculous statement from Rep. Ken Buck regarding Tuesday’s vote on same-sex and interracial marriage protections:

 

Ken Buck says the Supreme Court considers marriage to be a “settled issue” and he believes them. He’s probably just trolling with this statement, but it’s in pretty bad taste to pretend that anything is settled law after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, which everybody insisted was also “settled law.” It’s also really lame for Buck to be pretending that inflation is the only thing that Congress should be discussing when the only thing Buck is talking about is the Second Amendment.

Boebert, Buck, Lamborn

As far as we can tell, Boebert has not commented on these votes. Neither has Lamborn, though we can never be sure if he’s paying attention to anything or if a staffer is just carting him around “Weekend at Bernie’s” style.

Anyway, we’ll reiterate the same thing we wrote on Tuesday: If Republicans take control of one or more Chambers of Congress in 2023, they’re going to go after same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and contraception. They’ll try to focus on the economy during the 2022 election — and even then only to blame Democrats — but don’t be fooled into thinking Republicans don’t have their own social agenda planned.

Colorado Republicans COULD have voted to protect same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and access to contraception…but they didn’t. What else do you need to see?

Tweet
Share

Comments

16 thoughts on “Colorado Republicans Vote NO on Contraception Protections”

    1. Don't condemn LoBo for being a teen mom.  Condemn her for having a child with a guy who exposed himself to underage girls in a bowling alley.

      1. Why not both? The problem with the former isn't really being a teen mom itself: It's the moral sanctimony she constantly exhibits despite miserably failing her own standards.

        1. I agree with what you're saying here.  I think your earlier comment came off as judgmental towards teen moms in general.  But, her being a teen mom, as emblematic of her not living up to the so-called "morality" she pushes on the rest of us is a fair criticism.

  2. I seem to recall several years ago, when the Rs last held the state senate, that they killed a bill to renew a program making contraceptives available to younger people.

    It was a successful program that led to fewer abortions. But for the religionists who dominate the R party, it had to be killed because it "promoted promiscuity."

    Perhaps somebody remembers this a bit better than I do.

  3. Ken Buck must be taking lessons from Susan Collins, somehow knowing what "settled law" means to various Justices.

    Vox had a slightly clearer view of the Dobbs decision:

    Alito’s opinion goes further, and concludes that Roe and Casey “must be overruled.” It is written in Alito’s characteristically snide tone, repeatedly referring to abortion providers by the pejorative term “abortionists.” And it rests on a conservative theory that limits which rights are protected by the Constitution.

    “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” Alito writes.

    According to Alito, if a right isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it must be “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’” to qualify for constitutional protection. He then spends many pages of his opinion arguing that the right to an abortion is not rooted in legal history or tradition.

    Last time I checked, the Constitutional did not mention the word "contraception" at all … and Long-Acting Reversible Contraception clearly is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition."

    1. Ken Buck is many things, but he isn't a vacuous ditz like Susan Collins.

      Buck knows exactly what "settled law" means. It's "settled" for lower court judges who must adhere to US Supreme Court precedent. But Supreme Court justices can revisit prior precedent and overrule it when they feel it is warranted.

      1. That "vacuous ditz" has somehow managed to win 5 Senate elections, survived as the ONLY Republican Senator in the New England States, and consistently is among the most successful Senators at cobbling together whatever bi-partisan legislation that gets passed. 

        She's often wrong and sometimes overly optimistic.  It would be great if she wouldn't be so partisan in her voting with the Republican Conference. 

        I don't deal with Ken Buck and have only seen him a couple of times "live."  Haven't even done that much with Susan Collins.  Even so, I suspect she is every bit as intelligent as Ken Buck. 

        1. "That 'vacuous ditz' has somehow managed to win 5 Senate elections"

          Are you suggesting that there is a connection between intelligence and winning elections because history has shown the opposite to be true.

          The smartest guy or gal on stage during the debate usually ends up as the loser. Think 2000 and Al Gore vs. G.W. Bush. Bush was the guy voters felt they could sit down and have a beer with. Gore was the nerd whom the jocks routinely stuffed into his own locker.

          Or think 2016 when the academically smartest person on stage (finished at the top of her classes at Wellesley and Yale Law School) lost to an imbecile who was an unsuccessful businessperson (multiple bankruptcies) but with a successful reality TV show.

          And I'm old enough to remember the extremely bright Jimmy Carter running against the extremely dimwitted but amiable Ronald Reagan.

          And how else can you explain the phenomenon that was Sarah Palin. Or closer to home, Lauren Boebert. Or Marjorie Taylor Green.

          Collins may know how to win elections, but she is still a vacuous ditz.

           

    2.  

      You’d think a SCOTUS Justice would be familiar with:Amendment IX (1791)The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

       

      1. Sure, but that apparently only goes for longstanding rights, where the term "longstanding" means significantly predating the ruling recognizing the right. Aka all unenumerated rights are meaningless because they're not really rights.

  4. you can’t have an abortion + you shouldn’t have access to contraception = R logic

    brought to you by the party for liberty and freedom

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

299 readers online now

Newsletter

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