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
October 08, 2014 12:26 PM UTC

Reporters again try but again fail to get truth from Gardner on federal "personhood" bill

  • 20 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Video clips added, here is part 2 of Gardner's debate disaster – promoted by Colorado Pols)

In an article this morning, Fox 31 Denver's Eli Stokols reports that senatorial candidate Cory Gardner shifted last night from repeatedly saying to multiple reporters (as documented in the video above) that there is "no federal personhood bill" to saying, repeatedly, that it's "simply a statement."

Stokols writes:

“The federal act that you are referring to is simply a statement that I believe in life,” Gardner said when asked about the Life Begins at Conception Act by Lynn Bartels.

When Udall repeatedly went back to the issue, Gardner stuck to script, repeating his line that his co-sponsorship of the measure is “simply a statement that I support life.”

Gardner also attempted to separate the House Life at Conception Act, which he signed on as a co-sponsor to last summer, from the nearly identical Senate version, which he claimed not to have seen, and dismissed the notion, pushed by Udall’s campaign, that the legislation could result in banning some forms of birth control.

In countering this nonsense from Gardner, Stokols cites an appeal from Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, explaining that “by legally defining that life begins at conception, — would simply bring the legal definition of “life” in line with the biological definition… in effect overturning Roe v. Wade."

Here's the audio of Paul's brutally honest statement of support for the Life at Conception Act.

And here's a transcript of Paul's entire statement:

Hello. This is Senator Rand Paul. Will you help me in a bold and aggressive campaign to end abortion-on-demand– once and for all?

Since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played got with innocent human life. They have invented laws that condemned more than 56 million babies to painful deaths without trial…merely for the crime of being “inconvenient.”

But the good news is Congress has the power to legislatively overturn Roe v. Wade and end all abortion-on-demand.

You see, when the Supreme Court invented the so-called “right” to an abortion, they left an opening for us in Congress to act on the question of when life begins. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins … the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

The Court then admitted that if the personhood of an unborn baby is established, the right to abort, “collapses, for the fetus’ right to live is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Aendment …”

Now what the Court was saying, if you look through the all the legal mumbo jumbo, is that we in Congress have the POWER to legally define when life begins.

The same judges who wrote Roe v. Wade actually admitted this. Of course, science has long held that life begins at conception.

That’s why I’m cosponsoring the Life at Conception Act, which — by legally defining that life begins at conception, — would simply bring the legal definition of “life” in line with the biological definition… in effect overturning Roe v. Wade.

That’s why I hope I can count on you to sign special petitions for both your Senators and your Congressman. And, if at all possible, I hope I can count on you to make a generous contribution of $50 to the National Pro-Life Alliance’s campaign to pass a Life at Conception Act and overturn Roe v. Wade.

Your generous contribution of $50 or more will help pay for collecting petitions from up to one million Americans … and for briefing hundreds of newspaper columnists, editorial writers, and talk radio hosts. The fact is, with enough pressure from dedicated pro-lifers on Members of Congress from both parties, you and I can force every member elected as a pro-lifer to either end the slaughter now … or face angry voters back home.

I have to tell you from my perspective as a pro-lifer in Congress that every pro-lifer’s activism is essential in our fight against abortion-on-demand. But I have especially come to appreciate the members of National Pro-life Alliance. Their members nationwide are perhaps the most active and focused on the ultimate vision of eliminating abortion-on-demand — not just regulating it.

In fact, it is primarily because of National Pro-life Alliance members that the Life at Conception Act has an all-time record number of House and Senate sponsors. That’s why I hope you will go all out to support their efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade by passing a Life at Conception Act.

You see, their goal over the next 60 days is to add as many additional cosponsors as possible and then to force roll call votes in both the House and Senate.

Your generous contribution will then also help pay for hard-hitting radio, TV, and newspaper advertising which the National Pro-Life Alliance is committed to run in target states.

By forcing roll call votes, wavering politicians will have to either vote to protect the innocent — or face hundreds of thousands of angry voters back home. If you can help, just bring public opinion to bear on my colleagues in Congress, I’m convinced that we can get this bill to the forefront of the American debate — and ultimately outlaw abortion once and for all.

That’s why it’s vital you sign the petitions I mentioned at once. And please, make this massive advertising and petition drive possible by sending a special contribution to the National Pro-life Alliance.
[Please sign the petition below in support of the Life at Conception Act.]

Tweet
Share

Comments

20 thoughts on “Reporters again try but again fail to get truth from Gardner on federal “personhood” bill”

      1. Hahahahahaha.  It's so funny, right, because he replaced Stoklos with IUD!  It's like they're similar word and letter combinations and that makes the funny!  Oh, let me try too…and Barack Depoprovera!

         

            1. Since I've been skipping anything appearing with Piss Ants handle I don't believe I've missed a thing. Haven't banished Modster from my reading list yet but after this, maybe it's time.

              2. Zippy's every bit the lying, conning, jiving, conniving, backsliding, hypocritical fraud that Skippy is. Only difference between these two chuckleheads is the paycheck Skippy draws from The Koch Borg. Skippy is far more clever than the dimwitted, plodding Zippy, but also far more evil in intent. ZIppy's too dumb to know any better; Skippy is too evil and immoral to care.

                 

                1. Pretty much agree. Was hoping silly brain washed modster might be capable of learning something but must now admit, not likely in the foreseeable future. 

                    1. Do you understand, little troll, that every time you oh-so-clever wannabe Einsteins use gems like "Mark Uterus," you simply remind women yet again why they already hate your party and your candidate, do you not?

                    2. Must concur with DP. Mark Uterus is not the kind of nickname that will get more women on your side.  If you really think calling Mark Udall Mark Uterus is going to  get you one more voter beyond the voters you already have on board, be my guest. Put it on billboards if you want. I haven't the slightest objection.

  2. I believe in life, too. I even support it, as my father would have said: "I'm all in favor of life." 

    I also believe in the sky and the earth under my feet. So, um, what does your "belief in life" mean, exactly, Mr. Gardner?

    Cut the crap already. Everyone, including your "pro-life" activists, understands that you want to make abortion and most forms of contraception illegal.

    You can fool all pro-life activists some of the time. You can fool some of  the pro-choice activists all of the time. But you can't fool all of the voters all of the time – thanks to real journalists like Eli Stokols and Jason Salzman.

    1. He's not fooling anybody. Pro-choicers  wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. Anti-choicers either don't believe he means it when he says he now opposes personhood (wink, wink) or do and are pissed about it. They latter won't vote for Udall but that wasn't going to happen anyway. 

      I don't understand what he thinks he's getting out of this tactic except being called out as a weasel who can't be trusted in two important newspapers already and making it tougher for other papers to endorse him without looking like they don't care how sleazy he is as long as he's an R.

  3. It is this fundamental lie, on Personhood, which will ultimately sink Con Man Cory Gardner, and destroy the GOTP's wet dream of stealing the Senate.

    It's the lie Con Man started with, and it is the lie-covered political hill on which he will perish.

    Too bad, Karl, David and Charles. All four of you mutts, go eff yourselves, you thieving, lying, anti-America swine.

  4. How many people, who care about his stance on the asinine personhood amendment, haven’t made up their minds on who to vote for?

    The people who support the stupid personhood amendments were never going to vote for Udall anyway. Unless there is a significant number of voters who care about this amendment, and still haven’t made up their minds, further inquiry is a waste of time.

    I'm voting for Udall but this personhood drumbeat is really getting old.

    1. It's not actually about Personhood anymore. Maybe it used to be, but as the Herald and Sentinel have pointed out, his refusal to accept accountability for his own actions and positions has now become the story. 

      It's about the fact that he is a two-faced liar that can't be trusted by anyone at any level. Personhood is just the most readily available and easily understood example. He says he doesn't support it while actively supporting it.

      It's like when my daughters claim to not know anything about the missing cookies. I ask, "Then how did the crumbs and chocolate get all over your face." Cue playing dumb. "It's just a statement I support sugar." No it's not. They ate the cookie. 

      And Gardner supports personhood. He ate the damn cookie. And despite being caught with his hand in the jar and the crumbs on his face, he continues to deny it. 

      That's what this is about. Personhood is bad enough. Lying about it so unashamedly, is worse. And lying so very poorly is the worst. Because it means that in addition to thinking it's ok to be dishonest, he also thinks the public is stupid enough to buy it. 

    2. If it's gotten to the point that papers like the Durango Herald are telling their readers to vote for the other guy because, basically, Gardner has no integrity and can't be trusted, a dent has definitely been made. And not just over personhood but over every stand he now refuses to acknowledge and every question he weasels out of answering on a range of issues. The message isn't you can't trust him on choice. The message is you can't trust him on anything, pretty much a direct quote from the Aurora Sentinel.  

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

167 readers online now

Newsletter

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