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
July 10, 2014 01:36 PM UTC

Gardner un-cosponsored legislation in 2011, showing how he can un-cosponsor federal personhood bill now

  • 13 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Rep. Cory Gardner (R).
Rep. Cory Gardner (R).

One of the biggest election-year hypocrisies hanging out there, waiting for a civic-minded reporter to jump on, is the fact that senatorial candidate Cory Gardner remains a cosponsor of federal personhood legislation, even though he's told the world, both in interviews and even in a paid advertisement, that he's "learned more" about "personhood" and changed his mind about supporting it.

To un-cosponsor the federal personhood bill, the Life at Conception Act, Gardner must give a speech from the floor of the House of Representatives. Why hasn't he done this?

Now is the time for the aforementioned civic-minded reporter to jump in and remind Gardner that he's trotted down to the floor of House and un-cosponsored at least one bill before.

Back in 2011, Gardner, along with fellow Colorado Congressmen Coffman and Tipton, cosponsored legislation offering tax credits for natural-gas-powered vehicles.

But the oil-loving Koch brothers caught wind of the legislation, and pressured co-sponsors of the bill to withdraw their names.

As the Sunlight Foundation reported at the time:

But some companies, led by the oil refining conglomerate owned by the politically influential Koch brothers, have campaigned against the legislation, according to a report in The Hill newspaper. Their efforts have resulted in 14 members of Congress withdrawing their support for the bill.

Gardner, Coffman, and Tipton apparently felt the Koch pressure, and speaking from the floor of the House, one by one, they asked that their cosponsorship of the natural-gas bill (HR 1380) be ended. Click at the bottom of the page here, on "Show cosponsors who withdrew."

Here's C-Span video of these exciting acts of remorse and regret. In the first video, Gardner is not pictured, but you hear Gardner say:

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose would the gentleman from Colorado like to address the House?

GARDNER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from [H.R.] 1380."

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Without objection.

Then you see Rep. Scott Tipton make the same request. In the second video, you see Rep. Mike Coffman do it.

WATCH:

WATCH:

If Gardner can do this in 2011, why won't he do it now?

During an interview on with CBS4's Shaun Boyd in April, Gardner went out of his way to distinguish between state and federal personhood proposals, as gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez has also done, indicating that he may not take back his support of federal personhood, even though the state and federal measures would do the same thing. And Gardner has defended his anti-abortion record on the radio.

It was only June of 2013 when Gardner first added his name to the list of cosponsors of the Life at Conception Act. Maybe he's fine with it. It's a question that deserves to be asked.

Tweet
Share

Comments

13 thoughts on “Gardner un-cosponsored legislation in 2011, showing how he can un-cosponsor federal personhood bill now”

  1. I hope Gardner keeps his name on the bill, wins the election, and leaves you stupid liberals to cry in your Cheerios about how unfair the world is.

    This election will not be about abortion. The one trick pony is getting boring.

        1. Don't forget immigration. Udall already voted for a comprehensive immigration bill. All gardner has done is offer citizenship through military service – a practice already in existence. Will gardner be willing to sponsor a comprehensive immigration bill in the house? And then push for a vote on the house floor.? The bill would pass in the house today. Why won't the gop and gardner and coffman allow a vote in the house?

        2. OK…how about "the economy, the economy, the economy!" or…"jobs, jobs, jobs"?  …President Obama and the Democrats lifted us out of the recession in spite of everything the Republicans could do to stop them…we have lots of hands to play…want to hear some more?

    2. He's running away from his position on this issue.  A moral issue in the eyes of the right-to-lifers, I might add.  After he narrowly loses the election, he's finished.  What's he going to do, go back to the GOP base and ask their support in another race down the road?  They'll be backing a real conservative on abortion.  Say what we will about Bob Schaffer and Tom Tancredo, but at least they stick to their guns.

    3. Either way, it was nice to see Cory stand up to the pressure of the Koch brothers on the tax credits and represent the people of Colorado for once.

      HAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!

    4. You probably don't have to worry your petty little head any, Gardner won't be removing his name . . .

      (. . . unless some Koch wants it removed.)

  2. Maybe Coffman's wife will ask the Supreme Court to remove her name from the briefs Suthers is going to be filing in his multiple appeals of the same sex marriage rulings……..

  3. Well no, the issue isn't abortion, abortion, abortion. It's "Do we allow the Republican Uturine Police control over half the population?"

    Even normal, brain dead Republicans know it's not about abortion. If it were, they'd support low cost contraception for all women. As has been shown in the recent Colorado study, this reduces abortions by a significant amount.

    This, Republicans won't and can't do. Their aim is only and always the control of women's sexuality. It's not the foetus, it's the fucking.

      1. And it's about controlling those "other" women; Dem leaning minorities and single women. You may have noticed that Republicans, as a group, don't have huge families compared to others. That's because they themselves, as a group (naturally individual behavior varies within all groups), use the same common forms of birth control as everyone else. 

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

157 readers online now

Newsletter

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