U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(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) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

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
September 19, 2012 07:01 PM UTC

Does Ryan really believe "people should be free to have birth control all they want"

  • 9 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

In an interview with 9News Political Reporter Brandon Rittiman, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan was asked if he wants to “abolish” birth control completely.

His reply,”Oh, heaven’s no.”

But, as we know from our long and losing history with personhood amendments here in Colorado, the phrase “birth control” has multiple meanings, depending on where you come down on personhood, which would give legal rights to fertilized eggs and ban all  abortion.

For Ryan, who supports personhood and believes life begins at conception, “birth control” exists, but it’s limited to specific objects and pills that do not destroy or have the ability to destroy fertilized eggs or zygotes.

Other forms of “birth control,” like some forms of the pill and IUD’s, are not considered “birth control” at all by personhood supporters, but abortifacients, which are zygote killers, chemicals that cause “abortion.” And these would be banned, if fertilized eggs received legal protections under personhood laws.

So, in the following exchange with Rittiman, if you want understand Ryan’s real position on birth control, you have to get biological with him (as in, what about forms of birth control that threaten or kill fertilized eggs?)

Rittiman: I’ve got a few questions from viewers…Holly asked us on our Facebook page about women’s issues, which have been in the campaign dialogue. She wants to know if you’re simply opposed to public funding of things like birth control or if you want to abolish them completely?

Ryan: Oh, heaven’s no. People should be free to have birth control all they want. But what we don’t want to do is force taxpayers or groups, like religious charities, churches, and hospitals, to have to provide and pay for benefits that violates their religious teachings and conscience. Of course we believe people should have the freedom to use birth control. Nobody’s talking about that. The question is, can the federal government require churches and charities, people of religious conviction, to violate their religious liberties, which is our First Amendment in the Constitution.

(This exchange occureed a couple weeks ago on Your Show, which airs on Channel 20 in Denver.)

As I’ve discussed previously reporters need to beware of the “birth-control” rhetoric of politicians who want to support both personhood and “birth control.” Politicians can certainly have it both ways, because some forms of birth control would obviously not be banned under personhood, but some common forms would be banned. So, reporters should clarify what people like Paul Ryan are talking about when they use the phrase “birth control.”

As to which forms of birth control threaten fertilized eggs and which would do not, I interviewed Nanette Santoro, MD, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, at the University of Colorado about this back in 2010, and, the way I interpreted her comments, a number of types of birth control, including forms of the pill will, or have the potential to, destroy  fertilized eggs. And if you believe that killing a fertilized egg amounts to murder, then you wouldn’t want to risk using some forms of birth control, and it would be illegal to do so. Taking some forms of the pill would amount to playing Russian roulette.

I asked Santoro if the science had changed since my 2010 interview, and she said, through a spokesperson, that it had not.

So, unless scientists tell us differently down the road, reporters will be left to sort out the linguistic gymnastics they hear from personhood supporters, like Ryan, who apparently don’t like to say they are against common forms of birth control.

Tweet
Share

Comments

9 thoughts on “Does Ryan really believe “people should be free to have birth control all they want””

  1. the two most unanswerable questions begin,

    “Does R-Ayn really believe . . .?”

    “Does Willard really believe . . . ?”

    because they aren’t saying, and won’t provide details, and have publicly stated that if they do provide answers and specific plan details, that that information would be detrimental to their efforts and used against them.

    “Man (men) of principle,” indeed.

    When it comes to these two, we’re pretty left with debating just a few answerable questions, like — How many servants can dance on the deck of a Cayman registered yacht?, and — How many times did R-Ayn climb every mountain in Colorado last week?, and — How much longer do these two clowns think they can continue to play these games?

  2. Currently, if a state were to pass such a amendment, it would be immediately challenged because it would be in direct conflict with the US Constitution.

    Such Personhood bills would go into effect only if Roe V. Wade were overturned and then the issue of abortion returned to the States.  Those are the questions that should be asked.  I think that both Romney and Ryan believe that the issue should be returned to the states.

    The current Personhood bill in Congress, co-sponsored by Ryan and 62 others will die in committee without a vote, as have all other such bills since 1983. The only concern about that bill is it does echo the republican

    platform and asserts that Congress as the RIGHT to interpret terms, such as person, in the 14th amendment….if that were to happen, we would lose not only civil rights, but our constitution and our federal system.

    1. Sure, it might get struck down, but you still have to treat it as if it would be implemented, if voters passed it. There are always legal questions about initiatives, like TABOR to this day, Amendment 41, etc., but the assumption should be that it will do what it says it will do. Personhood has a rougher road than many, and that can be acknowledged, but still.

      Also, this post is about Ryan’s position. You talk about someone’s position as if it would happen because that’s what they want to happen.  

      1. There are two issues:

        1) Ryan sponsored a Personhood law in Congress along with 62 other republicans. So, the interviewer asked Ryan about the implication of the Personhood law.

        Ryan ducked that question and instead addressed the second issue.

        2) That is the HSS mandate for most employers, including Catholic ones, to provide for birth control coverage in the insurance the employer offered.  This was the issue that Ryan addressed.

        They are two separate issues.  The interviewer did not pin Ryan down on the first.  

        I don’t know if you were required to take American government in order to study journalism.  Constitutional questions can be raised about any law.  But, the personhood law is in direct conflict with Roe.  It is not obscure; and, Constitutional law also trumps a law passed by legislatures….unless the Supreme Court reverses its interpretation of Roe.   So your assumption that the Colorado personhood law would be implemented immediately, is wrong.  It would not.

        Also, it is different  from  Tabor…Tabor is not in direct conflict with the US Constitution.

        Let me ask you a question.  If the voters of Colorado passes an amendment calling for segregation in all schools in Colorado based on race, would it be implemented immediately?

      1. There are no state laws currently restricting contraception.  Roe allows states to restrict abortion in the second and third trimester, already.  There are no personhood laws currently in the states.  There are no laws currently pending before the Supreme Court that would outlaw abortion or restrict contraception.

        I believe that a republican senate is a very real, and dangerous, possibility.  If that were to happen, I would be fascinated to see what the republicans did about Roe.

        My guess is NOTHING, but I could be wrong.

        I think they would focus on cases that involve states’ rights.  

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

64 readers online now

Newsletter

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