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%
March 26, 2014 11:41 AM UTC
32 Comments
This is a medical/sematic nightmare. It all boils down to how contraception works. If a method of contraception can be proved, not to stop conception, but to stop implantation in the uterus, then the answer is that the contraception really acts as an aborticificant. The answer will determine how SCOTUS rules on the Hobby Lobby question.
As I understand it, medical science can theorize how some forms of contraception work (such as the IUD), but there is no scientific data actually documenting the failure to implant in the uterus in any given instance. Medical science has to work backward to even estimate when conception or failure to conceive occurred.
We should just ask all those angels dancing on the head of a pin.
What's the definition of abortion? What's the definition of pregnancy? Are all women who conceive pregnant?
Depending on these answers, prevention of implantation being "aborticacient" is Stockholm Sundrome. Because someone say sit is so does not make it so, and parroting their words as if they were true facilitates their argument.
The religious argument that is being presented is that all women who conceive are pregnant.
DP , I'm curious. What is the official medical definition of pregnancy? After fertilized egg attaches to lining? Do you think this medical definition will be a factor in the case SCOTUS is hearing?
Maybe Daft can give us the latest most accepted answer but a search for medical definitions turned up both conception and implantation. Looks like there is enough ambiguity among medical definitions to preclude either side from claiming that there's is the correct definition. Daft?
See:
Conception/Implantation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11893
Pre-implantation conceptus wastage
http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/333.full.pdf
Abortion Definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_abortion
So if abortion is termination of pregnancy, and the routine outcome for fertilized eggs is NOT implantation, and any drug/device/intervention that could theoretically increase the likelihood of that conceptus NOT implanting (theoretical/unproven), such methods are only "abortifacient" if women who have conceived are considered pregnant, the vast majority of whom will not bear a child as a result of that event.
Pregnancy is the state of gestation characterized by the physical and hormonal changes that happen in a woman's body once a zygote has implanted in her uterus. No implantaion-No changes, hence no pregnancy.
Calling pre-implantation events abortion focuses only on the fetus at the exclusion of the woman. Pregnancy and abortion are things that happen to women. It's clear who the Personhood movement cares more about.
I actually had already visited the first two you link to but fund neither absolutely definitive on whether it would only be correct to define prgnancyi n terms of implantation. I agree with your analysis but don't think that medical definition of pregnancy will be a useful thing to hang a hat on in courts.
Nothing is. It's about "sincerely held religious beliefs" which have allegedly been abridged. Those are not subject to objective review.
Pols, were you paying attention in 2004?
The Kerry quote is from a bill to continue appropriations for the Bush wars. He was for it when it include taxes on high earners to pay for it, and voted against it after it was defunded and tacked on to the deficit.
I will be waiting to see the next poll on Gardner to see how the general public is reacting – concerned or just turning out.
Nobody cares. This is a Pols story. Period.
Yeah, despite every major TV station in town covering it, every statewide political blog/website covering it, and every national political blog/website I've visited since Saturday morning covering, it's obviously just a Pols story.
Lack credibility much? Yes, you do. Please continue whislting past the graveyard…
Almost like the return of Baghdad Bob and his pronouncements 🙂
AC must be the information minister for the Colorado GOP
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljoke-iraqinfominister.htm
They evidently have no idea how pathetically dumb and sad they appear, nor any awareness of how profoundly they embarrass and humiliate themselves with every asinine lie. Politically impotent and utterly ineffectual on every level.
They don't care. they just want to get their spin out there, and some of them may actually believe the spin. I'm not sure what Andrew's purpose is here. He may work for a campaign or a state or national entity monitoring blogs, etc., but he puts things out there and they just get knocked down. Maybe he actually works for Dems. He is the library guy.
You wish….
You know when AC's group says nobody cares it means they HOPE nobody cares. You know when they say its a non-story they HOPE its a non-story. They're pretty transparent that way…
A MATTER OF TRUST
The specific policy issue doesn't matter. Its the fact Mr. Gardner has lied repeatedly over at least the past four years on a major public policy issue.
2010: In 2010, he lied to the editoral board of the Ft. Collins newspaper when he said he wouldn't sponsor anti-abortion legislation even though two weeks prior to that, at a Tea Party event, he specifically told the audience he would sponsor such legislation and within two months of taking his seat in Congress he began sponsoring and supporting anti-abortion legislation and thereby confirmed his lie to the Ft. Collins newspaper..
2010 – March 17, 2014: Over the next four years he had a 100% voting record supporting anti-abortion legislation and resolutions including co-sponsoring the national Personhood Amendment in July 2013.
He decides to run for the U.S. Senate on February 26, 2014 and tells the voters on March 21, 2014 that he has been reconsideirng support for the Personhood Amendment since it was defeated in 2010, even thoug, as stated above, he cosponsored the Personhood amendment in July 2013 and as late as January 28, 2014 voted and supported an anti- abortion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.
And now today, we find out that only four days before his announcement last Friday, he writes to a constituent in the 4th congressional district that "Throughout my life, I have been committed to the protection of life beginning at conception." That is an endorsement of the Personhood Amendment.
He lied to Colorado voters when he said he's been reconsidering his stance on the Personhood Amendment for four years and he lied by attempting to make the voters believe he is no longer pro life.
His introduction to the voters of Colorado consists of two points. First, he is an incumbent congressman and second, he is a liar.
Mr. Gardner can't be trusted.
"Mr. Garnder can't be trusted."
In that simple, accurate declarative sentence, you've enunciated the underpinning of every anti-Gardner Udall/Dem Party political ad Coloradans will see between now and the election: Gardner's a weasel, a chameleon, a shapeshifter, a con artist, a grifter, a backslider — in short, an untrustworthy liar. Same richly deserved fate awaits Coffman.
This outburst of crassly opportunistic, pathetically transparent flip-flopping by Dumber (Cory) and Dumberer (Coffman) has been a godsend to the Udall and Romanoff campaigns.
Udall is an incumbent Senator and he is a liar.
Udall can't be trusted.
So where does that leave things,
One candidate lied about healthcare and it hurt people.
The other candidate lied about Personhood and I could care less.
If you could get pregnant, AC, you'd care a lot.
The latest GOP strategy for Women's Outreach:
Of course you couldn't but you're already voting for the idiot. The question his how does this help him expand beyond you and your fellow travelers. The answer is … it doesn't.
So, it's okay if Gardner betrays his core cupport groups, denying that their beliefs are important anymore, in order to get what he wants, because AC, Moddy, and their ilk know that:
A: The lying really doesn't mean anything to him, that he's actually loyal to their cause, and B: They don't really care about it anyway, so no big deal.
Didn't I see this dysfunctinoal couple on Dr. Phil a few hundred times….?
What words of wisdom do you think Dr. Phil would have for these dysfunctional couples?
Gardner is partnered with AC b/c he's running against Udall.
Coffman is partnered with Modster because : Obamacare!
How are we going to save these marriages?
And how did these big, strong Second Amendment Solution Teahadists turn into such self-loathing, spineless jellyfish?
After he loses the election Dr. Phil would ask him, "How's that flip-flopping thing workin' out for ya, Cory?"
Really, how much less could you care? You obviously care to some degree if you "could care less".
Go back to school, you illiterate jerk.
What, to some Liberal Arts College? Not when there are online degrees available from American Patriot Liberty 9/11 Freedom Warrior University…
Just send $99.95 and a sworn statement affirming that you're a Real American, and you got yourself a Doctorate in Contemporary American Conservative Theory.
The late great Pete Seeger's attempt at keeping politicians honest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUb8RAyLf80
Given my technological impairment, this may not work.
Gardner's letter doesn't say what his position on HR 3471 is. He straddles the issue by claiming to be both "committed to the protection of life beginning at conception" and "a strong supporter of women's rights." Oddly, he also describes HR 3471 in terms that a commited pro-choice advocate would ("works to eliminate regulations and laws which restrict women's access to abortions"). Real anti-choicers call the bill the "Abortion Until Birth Protection Act."
What a weasel.
You call it straddling the issue, OTD. I call it playing both ends against the middle. Mr. Miyagi had it right: "Middle of road, squish like bug."