A sidenote to this week's passage in the U.S. House of H.R. 1797, a GOP-sponsored bill to restrict abortion rights, helpfully brought to our attention by a reader. Following the vote on H.R. 1797 Tuesday, Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado put out a statement attempting to explain his vote in favor of this abortion ban bill:
I voted today in favor of H.R. 1797 to limit late term abortion. I strongly support the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this legislation. [Pols emphasis]
As has been reported in this space and elsewhere, this represents a major shift in Coffman's stance on abortion. Back in 2009, Coffman was so eager to make sure his hard-line position on abortion was known that he requested this clarification from former local talk-show host Dan Caplis:
Dan, I would deeply appreciate it if, during your show, you could state that I wanted to make sure that my position was clear, unequivocally, that I oppose abortion in all cases of rape and incest. [Pols emphasis] I believe that all life is equally sacred irregardless of how it came into being.
You'll recall that Rep. Coffman has explained his "change of heart" on another issue, immigration reform, by saying he spoke with affected families–especially noncitizen soldiers in the American armed forces. Of course, the fact that Coffman's formerly beet-red district was remade into one of the most competitive districts in the nation is widely accepted as the true reason for Coffman's shifting stances on the issues.
In 2011, Coffman co-sponsored a bill to restrict abortion funding to cases of "forcible" rape along with Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, a bill now embarrassingly prescient of Akin's career-ending remarks about "legitimate rape" and pregnancy. Coffman's 2009 statement that he "opposes abortion in all cases of rape and incest" was unequivocal. What happened to change his mind this time, other than simple political calculation?
Because you only get so many "changes of heart" before they put your face on an Etch-a-Sketch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Duke Cox
IN: BREAKING: Matt Gaetz Pulls Out Of AG Nomination
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: BREAKING: Matt Gaetz Pulls Out Of AG Nomination
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: BREAKING: Matt Gaetz Pulls Out Of AG Nomination
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: BREAKING: Matt Gaetz Pulls Out Of AG Nomination
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: BREAKING: Matt Gaetz Pulls Out Of AG Nomination
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: itlduso
IN: BREAKING: Matt Gaetz Pulls Out Of AG Nomination
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: BREAKING: Matt Gaetz Pulls Out Of AG Nomination
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Thursday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
"No story here," says Kurtis Lee and Chuck Plunkett…
When Obama "evolves," liberals praise him.
When Coffman "evolves," he's a fake.
Hypocrites…
I wish he was evolving but that isn't the case. In the 1980's and 90's, Congressman Coffman was 100% pro-choice before the pro-life groups tool over the Colorado Republican Party. When that happened, he became 100% pro-life as Coloradopols points out in the 2009 quote above. The only thing that has changed since 2009 is the fact his district has gone from an absolutely deep red district to a competitive one where pro-life is an unpopular position and thus his change of heart. Congressman Coffman is whatever he needs to be at the moment. He has a bad case of situational ethics.
Can you prove that? No one has ever told me that Coffman was once pro choice. I don't believe you.
Either way, Coffman is no different from Obama. Obama needed Gill $ in 2012 so he "evolved." How is that any different?
Read more: Mike Coffman: Aurora roots "play to my strengths" – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_21768451/aurora-is-home-coffman-but-could-prove-obstacle#ixzz2Wmlc6UJl
Yes, I can. I've lived in Arapahoe County for well over thirty years and in the 1980's and 90's was active in the Republican Party. I've known Congressman Coffman before he was first elected to the state House in 1988 and he was pro-choice in those days but when the county party was taken over by the right-to-lifers (they did it fair and square), he evolved to a 100% pro-life position. Now that his district is pro-choice, he is evolving again.
@Moderatus — you need to hang out here more often. Another lapsed Republican polster, Craig, has known Mike Coffman for decades, including Mike's pro-choice days. He's posted the history a few times. Here's a snippet from this past Monday:
Coffman didn't evolve. Evolution implies progress.
Not really. Evolution can result in the loss of function, as in animals that adapted to cave-dwelling by losing their eyes.
Adapting to the enivronment isn't progress?
I'm not sure if Coffman believes in evolution.