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 03, 2014 02:22 PM UTC

Udall Unleashes Devastating Abortion Memo On Gardner

  • 38 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Cory Gardner.
Cory Gardner.

FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports–this one's going to leave a mark.

Just as GOP U.S. Senate hopeful Cory Gardner is looking to re-introduce himself on women’s health issues, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall’s campaign is set to hammer him for legislation he supported as a state lawmaker that sought to punish abortion providers more harshly than rapists.

Udall’s campaign is focusing on legislation Gardner sponsored in 2007 as a state legislator, Senate Bill 143, which would have subjected physicians who perform abortions in every case but to save the pregnant woman’s life to class three felony charges and a sentence of up to 12 years in prison.

That’s a longer sentence than that served by the average convicted rapist in Colorado, according to a memo from Bruce Brown, the district attorney in Colorado’s 5th Judicial District, written for and soon to be distributed by Udall’s campaign…

Let's be crystal clear about what we're talking about. From Summit/Eagle DA Bruce Brown's memo:

In 2007, Rep. Gardner co-sponsored legislation in the State House (SB07-143), which would have subjected physicians to class 3 felony charges, with up to a twelve year prison sentence, for performing abortions in all cases except to save the life of the pregnant woman. To put the level of felony assigned by this legislative proposal in perspective, for physicians treating women who had been raped, the punishment assigned would be equal to that reserved for a residential arsonist and some second-degree murderers.

Most grotesquely, if Congressman Gardner’s law were enacted, a doctor providing abortion care for a victim of rape could be sentenced to a lengthier prison term than the average rapist serves. [Pols emphasis]

First of all, let's give some credit to our friend Jason Salzman, who explored this very question almost three weeks ago–and got the same answer from the American Civil Liberties Union's Mark Silverstein.

With that said, this isn't the first time Rep. Cory Gardner's sponsorship of 2007's Senate Bill 143 has come back to haunt him on the Senate campaign trail this year. In addition to Gardner's support for the Colorado Personhood ballot measures and the federal Life at Conception Act that Gardner remains a co-sponsor of, this 2007 abortion ban legislation, which made no exceptions for victims of rape of incest, is another central point in the case that–as Personhood USA's own Keith Mason said best–Gardner "built his entire political career on support of" banning abortion.

But even worse may be the response Stokols got from Gardner's campaign spokesman Alex Siciliano:

Gardner’s campaign blasted Udall, calling the attack “bogus” and “slanderous” but stopped short of pushing back against Brown’s interpretation of the 2007 bill. [Pols emphasis]

“Senator Udall is so desperate to continue his long career in politics that he is throwing out ridiculous charges that he knows are bogus,” said Gardner’s spokesman Alex Siciliano. “It’s sad that Senator Udall has nothing good to say about his own record and instead only slanders Cory Gardner. The facts don’t back Senator Udall up, again.”

…When pressed specifically to rebut Brown’s assertion that S.B. 143 would have resulted in longer sentences for abortion providers than rapists and whether that is something Gardner still supports, Siciliano did not respond further. [Pols emphasis]

Remember, Siciliano is the same Gardner spokesman who falsely claimed that there is a difference between the Colorado Personhood abortion ban measures Gardner has disavowed and the federal Life at Conception Act that Gardner is to this day a co-sponsor of. As Factcheck.org and experts have concluded–and the plain language of the proposals clearly shows–there is no distinction between Colorado's Personhood measures and the Life at Conception Act that would make one less likely to ban birth control than the other. And both would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

This latest piece of the puzzle, a credible legal opinion that one of Gardner's many abortion ban proposals could have had the outlandish consequence of punishing a doctor who performs an abortion more than the rapist who made the abortion necessary, could be the most damaging attack yet. Gardner's new ad up this week, trying to whitewash his positions on birth control, smacks of desperation with this memo in view–especially while his campaign denies any of this is an issue out of the other side of their mouths. We're not in the spring any more, voters are starting to pay attention now–and if all Gardner's campaign can do is feign outrage and misdirect away from these very simple questions?

It's not going to end well, folks. Because the questions are not going away.

Tweet
Share

Comments

38 thoughts on “Udall Unleashes Devastating Abortion Memo On Gardner”

  1. Just look up the definitions of "Bogus" and "Slanderous" in Conservapedia and you'll understand:

    Bogus:  yeah, ok, it is true

    Slanderous: Crap, I got nuthin'

    See, Gardner's mouthpiece isn't lying, he's just telling his version of the truth, as always.

    AC, Moddy, got ya covered — no extra charge

    1. There you go. Ad ready. Not lawyerly. Just that Gardner supported legislation that would punish a doctor for performing an abortion for a rape victim with a stiffer sentence than her rapist would receive. Clearly, his people don't want to say that's not true. For one thing it is and for another their base likes it. Especially since some of them believe if she didn't like it she wouldn't have gotten pregnant.

        1. Nah. Nate does admirable work, but like everyone else he's not perfect, and he probably has some bias. 

          The crack problem is with Moderatus and his head placement (as well as his inability to comprehend what he reads or hears).  

        2. How quickly we turn…Nate Silver says he's "between a liberal and a libertarian"…I mean, really, what do you expect a pollster to say? Of course, they're going to say that they're neutral, and only interested in the cold, clear data.

          I just remember that Silver took so much crap from the right in 2012 – now he's getting it from the left. Many would say that's a sign of objectivity. 

          Meth addiction jokes are not funny. Even if I make them. Especially if I make them. 

      3. ummm….two things. 1) Nate's still got it well within toss up range. 2) Colorado is one of the races he got wrong in 2010. He picked Buck. So… not that big a "BREAKING" deal.

      1. I love it when we give the right wingers facts they don't wanna hear.

        The The wingnuts suffered statewide losses in 2006, 2008, 2010, and in 2012 in Colorado. The wingnuts will continue the trend of losing statewide in Colorado once both ways Bob and Mr. Personhood Cory Gardner go down in November

      1. The part about his record on the closest ones is informative:

        We really got a closer look at Silver's ability to call close races, though, in 2010. Once again, Five Thirty Eight's Wikipedia entry will tell you that Nate Silver correctly called 34 out of the 37 Senate races that year. Technically, yes. But then again, you could have called at least 32 of them. I mean, really. Did we need Nate Silver to predict that Barbara Boxer was going to win in California or that Lincoln was going get thrown out in Arkansas? Come on. There really were only five (maybe actually four) closely contested races for the Senate in 2010: Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Alaska and Washington state (if you can even consider WA and NV close, but let's.) Do you know how many of those races Silver called correctly? Two. That's right. Out of the 5 close Senate races, Nate Silver missed the mark on 3.

        1. I like this- Nate came from baseball, a seamhead. I recall that 2010 broke a 80 yr tradition of both houses reverting opposite of which party was holding the Executive, only the house got tea bagged, they promised banking reform , yeah right. Gardner needs to go on Sunday shows and have his feet held to the fire- what happened to Ken Buck.

  3. Bruce Brown is a dyed in the wool Democrat. He is not an impartial law enforcement officer, he is acting as part of Udall's campaign. What do you expect him to say?

    Nice try, Eli, Pols, and the rest of the VLWC

    1. Do you have an answer? Did Nate Silver not predict a Gardner victory? Is Bruce Brown not a dyed in the wool Democrat?

      You're the ones with the emergency. You're going to lose this election.

        1. That may not be just Moddy's sweaty desperation . . .

          . . . Mmmmoddy jumped into the middle of a Chappy/Gardner sandwich on another diary here just a bit earlier today.

          1. I'm all in for hammering the hypocrisy and flip-flopping on abortion and birth control.

            But I agree that I would really like to see Udall's campaign "go positive" and tout his accomplishments – the libertarians, the moderates, and the millenials are most excited about his strong positions on protecting people from NSA spying. Udall is finally putting out ads about this, which I think will build support for him. 

             

            Gardner really has nothing to brag about legislatively, since his whole deal has been saying "No" to any actual lawmaking. This includes laws that the public really wants, such as And raising the minimum wage and immigration votes. 

      2. I love you, Moddy.  AC occasionally stumbles into these and gets a bit scorched but you go in all Charge of the Light Brigade.

        No, Nate Silver (who is not the only pollster in the world, and did, in fact, mis-predict a couple of races in 2012) did not predict a Gardner victory.  He called the race a tossup.  He also said that polls slightly favor Udall, but the extras his model uses causes him to favor Gardner slightly more.  He gave Gardner a 53% chance of victory, but that's actually a statistical measure not a prediction of the vote margin.  He's saying, "I believe all this stuff will happen, if I'm right about all of it, Gardner edges Udall out.  If any part is wrong…eh, who knows."

        1. As you point out a 53% chance of victory means a toss up, a statistically insignificant improvement on 50/50 not a victory with 53% of the vote. Nate Silver himself would never presume to have a solid prediction at this stage of the game.  As we all know, stuff happens. Look at what just happened in the Senatorial race in Kansas. 

          Wang says anything between a 40% chance and a 60% chance of victory is basically a toss up. Not only that, Colorado still seems to be a mystery to most national pundits and experts.

      3. It's in the legislation. Period. It doesn't matter who says it if it's right there in writing. And it's exactly what it was meant to say, what his base wanted it to say and what he cosponsored. Aside from that, yeah, sheer biased bull.laugh

      4. No moron moderatus, you're going to lose this election.

         

        Ny Times, Huffington Post,  Washington Post,  and Larry Sabato all have Udall beating Gardner. Get your tissues ready, 🙂

         

         

    1. Yup, they both got nothing to say about the substance of the article.  Hard to argue with facts, as much as they both try.  Distract with polls that will be meaningless in a few weeks.  Just need time for the real Cory to have his ass handed to him through public exposure of his many faults, even if Chuck Plunkett is doing his best to keep Cory's pants watered down so they don't catch on fire!

      My formerly Republican wife groans every time she sees another Gardner ad.

      1. Their entire response consists of "B-b-b-but — Nate Silver!" No defense of their lying, cowardly candidate; just a pathetically naive reliance on a fading pollster employing questionable methods.

        This race, and our myriad opprotunites to yet define Con Man negatively, using his only his own words and votes, have only just begun. They've already thrown everything they have at Senator Udall, and came away with no more than a tie at best.

        Please tell your wife how much we all sympathize. Cory ads (and those from Blossoming Turd Rove and the Koch cabal in support of him) turn all of our stomachs.

  6. A little story that I found telling…

    The Cory in the windmills ad comes on and my 79 year old mother, visiting from WA state and doesn't know the Conman from Adam, says "I'm not voting for you".

  7. Gardner's Credibility is in Tatters – He Forgot to Consult Abraham Lincoln

    Let's go over all of Mr. Gardner's positions.

    1. Federal Personhood Amendment: Mr. Gardner is a cosponsor of this legislation which would ban all abortions, even in cases of incest and rape, and ban most forms of contraceptives including the "morning after" pill because it is a form of abortion.

    2. Over-the-Counter Contraceptives: Mr. Gardner is in favor of selling contraceptives over-the-counter, including the "morning after" pill, even though he is simultaneoulsy sponsoring federal legislation that would make the "morning after" pill and other contraceptives illegal.

    3. Senate Bill 143: Mr. Gardner was one of the House sponsors of this bill that would make it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion except to save the life of the mother, even though he supports legislation to allow over-the-counter sale of contraceptives, including the "morning after" pill which could be utilized to chemically perform an abortion, while simultaneously sponsoring legislation to make those very same contraceptives illegal; and sponsoring federal legislation that would make it illegal to have an abortion even in the case of life of the mother.

    4. Colorado Personhood Amendment: Mr. Gardner, as of March 21, 2014, after supporting the Colorado Personhood Amendment for literally years, issues a statement declaring that he can no longer support it becuase he didn't relaize it would outlaw contraceptives, even though he is simultaneously cosponsoring the federal Personhood amendment which would outlaw contraceptives, while simultaneously supporting the over-the-counter sale of the same contraceptives he wants to make illegal.

    He has been quoted more times than anyone can count but Abraham Lincoln was right:

    You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    President Lincoln was talking about the credibility of public officials whether they be candidates or in office. Mr. Gardner is trying to fool everyone, all the voters of Colorado, including conservatives and the Republicans. There isn't one of us who has any reason to believe a word he says on women's rights or any other issue. There is nothing there except personal ambition. He has sand in his shoes and not one ounce of credibility.

  8. Sam Wang, the only guy who called ALL of the races correct in 2012 says dems have a 85% chance at holding the senate. Suck it wingnuts AG and moderatus. How much do you wanna bet personhood being on the ballot is going to draG Gardner down? LOL Both ways Bob is looking at his 2nd statewide loss. Last time both ways Bob ran, he got crushed by 17 points to a democrat. 🙂

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!