(feel free to print this and bring it with you to your assembly as a handout or reference)
Dear Pro-Life Voter:
Please support the Personhood Amendment #62! The most fundamental right recognized by our Constitution is the God-given right to life. It is government’s foremost duty to uphold the right to life of all innocent human beings, without exception. The Personhood Amendment – Amendment 62 on Colorado's November ballot –recognizes the right to life of unborn children from the beginning of their biological development as a human being.
Forty states currently are following Colorado's leadership and trying, through legislation or ballot initiatives, to get Personhood recognized for the unborn child. This has transformed the pro-life movement and given it new energy! For the first time in recent history, there is light at the end of the tunnel, and we may see abortion prohibited in the relatively near future.
Unfortunately, many politicians, including Republicans, and even some pro-life groups fear losing control of the agenda. They are trying to smother the Personhood movement in its crib! You may see an Eagle Forum flyer here (at political gatherings) today, spreading misleading statements.
They mean to discourage pro-lifers by pointing out that our 2008 measure only received 27% support – the first time any state has ever voted on Personhood. They say we should not try again. What successful social movement has ever given up after its first try? What if the anti-slavery movement had quit at their first setback? What if Britain had surrendered to Hitler because victory seemed impossible? It's not leadership to say, “We tried once and failed, so we should stop.”
In 2008 conventional wisdom held that only one out of eight people would vote for a total abortion ban. Yet in our first time on the ballot we received over 600,000 votes, more than doubling what was expected, in a state that had just elected a pro-abortion governor and president. With a well-run campaign, in this non-presidential election year, where just some Personhood voters bring another voter to the polls, we could win. Of slavery, the Holocaust, and abortion, we're now at two down and one to go!
The anti-personhood flyer claims pro-abortion groups are “enriched” by getting to fight the Personhood amendments in several states. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood don't see it that way. They're suing to keep Personhood amendments off the ballot in Missouri, Alaska, and Nevada, and they've announced that they might sue here in Colorado. (We're ready for them if they do.) And Mississippi has already certified their state's Personhood Amendment to be on the ballot, and signatures are being collected by the hundreds of thousands in Florida and California and elsewhere. Further, the pro-abortion group NARAL put Personhood USA, parent group of one of our sponsors, on their national Hall of Shame! What an honor! They fear what we can see: that Personhood has ignited a broad base of grassroots activity with more being done to stop abortion than any time in the last twenty years!
The “pro-life” opponents of Personhood claim “it’s not the right time,” but it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. They say they want to back Personhood “eventually,” but the US Supreme Court is not yet “ready” to support a pro-life measure. This admission comes after decades of their efforts to change the court, which admission is proof from their own mouths that their strategy is utterly failing. Republicans have nominated the majority of the federal judiciary, and the federal courts are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, so we need a new, direct strategy of teaching the public and our politicians the difference between right and wrong.
After decades of electing pro-life presidents, there is not a single Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court who has ever once advocated the right to life of the unborn child. So National Right To Life has never been able to claim the $10,000 offered them for simply naming a single pro-life Supreme Court Justice. That check is already written and remains un-cashed in the office of the Colorado-based American Right To Life.
Eagle Forum points to a memo by National Right To Life attorney James Bopp, which claims they fear a challenge to Roe v. Wade now might “make things worse.” Fear never won a fight. Over a million children will die from abortion this year! Fifty million dead children and they are afraid to pursue victory because things might get worse? That's like giving in to terrorists because we don't want to make them mad. Tragically, National Right To Life's general counsel tried to compromise the Republican Party platform by modifying it to support embryonic stem cell research, which is lethal experiments, on the tiniest children, little boys and girls just like the snowflake children, the adopted frozen embryos who themselves are the proof that these are precious little children. Thank God that National Right To Life's attorney failed.
That failed strategy, the old pro-life approach, of electing politicians who are pro-life, who will appoint judges who are pro-life, has failed because we didn’t have “quality control” and all our candidates, without opposition from NRTL, openly admitted that they would ignore abortion when nominating judges. And the proof is in the pudding, along with the poison, of scores of pro-abortion judges that we have unwittingly put on the bench. We need to teach our politicians that there is an actual right to life (i.e. Personhood)! We need to insist that they appoint judges who acknowledge the God-given right to life of each child. Where we stand right now, we don’t need “one more pro-life justice” – we need five! That old strategy has proved an utter failure.
What’s more, we’ve been teaching the American public the wrong lessons. When we say “the unborn child has a right to life!” and then turn around and promote laws to protect some babies, but not others, the American people rightly detect hypocrisy!
Footnote 54 of Roe v. Wade ruling (which tragically was written by a Republican Justice, Harry Blackman, and passed by a Republican majority) points out this very thing – that you cannot say the unborn child is a Person, and then say there are some circumstances when that innocent Person can be killed. That hypocrisy was cited as the reason why abortion was decriminalized– because existing "pro-life" laws actually didn’t recognize unborn children as Persons. But the Roe v. Wade decision itself also said that if a law were passed to recognize the Personhood of the unborn child, then the Supreme Court would have to protect unborn children under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment!
Personhood is a legal strategy, aimed at that "loophole" in Roe. But more than that, Personhood is a social movement, trying for the first time in 30 years to convince the American public that there exists an actual, God-given right to life for innocent children – no exceptions! Imagine the outcry if a massive body of citizens cried out to stop the slaughter, and the courts or politicians stood by and did nothing! They cannot. Personhood will force the politicians and the courts to change – if we insist our politicians support Personhood, then eventually the courts will follow.
Some defeated folks claim we have no power to change things, and we must accept the world as it is. They have no hope for victory, and they want you to abandon hope also. Their reasoning is all based on political calculation and conventional wisdom. But they forget that Christian social movements changed the world by relying on God’s wisdom! Remember the anti-slavery movement! Remember the civil rights movement! These were not secular in nature – these movements were Christian at their core! They dared to believe God would help them, and they changed the world!
That’s the promise of Personhood. In 2008 Colorado launched this strategy, and in 2010 there are 40 states following the example of our first “failure!” We’ve just now set out! We must press forward and not look back!
Press forward with us! Personhood for the unborn child – NOW!!!
Amendment 62 Co-Sponsors
Leslie Hanks
Colorado Right To Life
Gualberto Garcia Jones
303-456-2800
Personhood Colorado
Friday, April 9, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Early April Update - Candidate Surveys
CRTL continues to get new responses to our candidate surveys. We've tried to get responses earlier this year, so that you can use this information in your county, congressional district, and state assemblies in order to support candidates who you know are pro-life!
Please help us with this process by asking the candidates to respond to our survey so that you know where they stand. Don't accept simple claims like "I'm 100% pro-life" -- see if they have the guts to put their commitment on paper (and on the Internet).
In mid-March we posted a large amount of information on many races and candidates. This pre-caucus information can be found here (you're likely to find your candidates listed there -- add this posts's information to the info in that older post, and you'll be up to date).
Here's the new information:
Governor of Colorado
CRTL has no additional reason to believe Scott McInnis' claim that he is "100% pro-life". He still has not responded to the survey, and refuses to make concrete commitments. We are distrustful, because he will not go on record with specific promises, most particularly with regard to Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment.
On the other hand, we retain one major reservation for candidate Dan Maes too, and that is that he believes embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) can be allowed within limited circumstances. Despite his promise to support Personhood, this position is incompatible with the Personhood position, because it means he supports "limited" killing of unborn children. We will continue to dialogue with him on this, and we're hopeful that he will come around to our point of view once he has more time to examine the issue. Please encourage him to do so.
Constitution Party candidate Benjamin Goss has responded to our survey with 7 of 7 questions answered correctly!
U.S. Senate
Not much information to add, here.
Candidate Tom Wiens has promised to respond to the survey, and sounds like he intends to answer properly, but we still have not received his survey (he is petitioning on, and won't be a candidate at the assembly).
We are still concerned about Jane Norton's stated support for abortion exceptions, and she has not yet supported Personhood or responded to the survey. Please encourage her to take a stand on these issues, but for now we do not believe her positions qualify her as pro-life.
Candidates Ken Buck, Cleve Tidwell and Steve Barton are considered pro-life (only Tidwell has returned his candidate survey -- please encourage the others to do so!).
Treasurer Race
We still have not heard from JJ Ament one way or another on Personhood, or on the candidate survey. He claims to be pro-life, but so far this is only a claim. Please encourage him to return the survey.
Candidate Ali Hasan holds positions which support the killing of some unborn children, which means we do not consider him pro-life. At one point he seemed to be trying to run as a pro-life candidate. He remains open to dialogue, though, and we intend to follow through with him.
(Note added May 16: Ali Hasan's recent mailer implies that CRTL supports him, but we do not support any candidate who is not 100% pro-life, which means answering at least 6 out of 7 questions of our survey correctly - Hasan answered only 3 correctly. More info can be found in our earlier candidate survey post here: http://coloradorighttolife.blogspot.com/2010/03/pre-caucus-update-candidate-positions.html - CRTL still has not heard from JJ Ament as to whether he supports Personhood, and have not received his survey, nor have we heard from Stapleton)
We have not heard anything from Walker Stapleton, and have no reason to believe he is pro-life.
Congressional District 2
Candidate Bob Brancato has indicated he intends to respond to our survey, but we have not received his survey yet.
Congressional District 4
Diggs Brown states on his website that he is pro-life, but we believe he has suspended his candidacy.
Cory Gardner and Tom Lucero both responded 7 of 7 to our survey.
Congressional District 7
We have not yet heard from either Ryan Frazier or Lang Sias in this important race. Please encourage them to return their surveys, or at least to take a public stand on the Personhood Amendment, Amendment 62.
Republican candidate Mike Sheely did return his survey, and answered correctly on 7 of 7 questions!
State Senate District 2
Republican candidate Kevin Grantham has responded to our survey, answering 7 of 7 questions correctly!
Grantham faces primary opponents, but we have not heard from them.
State Senate District 3
Republican candidate Alexander Lucero-Mugatu has responded to our survey, responding correctly to 6 of 7 questions. His response to question #2, on rape & incest exceptions, makes us think he does not necessarily support prohibiting abortion for rape or incest (which undermines the Personhood of the unborn child), but we will work with him on these apparent exceptions. For now, it remains a red flag, and we hope that a supporter will be able to speak with him about this.
Mugatu faces a Republican primary, but we have not heard from his opponents.
State Senate District 5
Republican candidate Wayne Wolf has responded to our survey with 7 of 7 questions answered correctly! He did indicate a possible exception for certain regulations, but it sounds like he is very close to our position, and we can work with him on defining specifics.
Wolf faces a Republican primary, but we have not heard from his opponent.
State House District 35
Candidate Edgar Antillon indicated he would be responding to our survey, but we have not received it yet. He says he is pro-life.
State House District 57
Republican candidate Randy Baumgardner responded to our survey, answering 6 of 7 questions correctly (he may have missed question #2 -- we'll follow up with him on this question, regarding exceptions to allow abortion for rape & incest).
As we said earlier, we have heard from dozens more candidates than those listed here -- click the link at the top of the page to see a more comprehensive list (though some information on this list may supersede that information).
From elsewhere....
In addition to these candidates, it might be important to note that Congressional candidate Jeffrey Locke, running for Kansas' 2nd District, has also responded 7 of 7 to our survey (which would normally be covered by American Right to Life, though they have not been able to send surveys yet). Thank you, Jeff Locke!
Please help us with this process by asking the candidates to respond to our survey so that you know where they stand. Don't accept simple claims like "I'm 100% pro-life" -- see if they have the guts to put their commitment on paper (and on the Internet).
In mid-March we posted a large amount of information on many races and candidates. This pre-caucus information can be found here (you're likely to find your candidates listed there -- add this posts's information to the info in that older post, and you'll be up to date).
Here's the new information:
Governor of Colorado
CRTL has no additional reason to believe Scott McInnis' claim that he is "100% pro-life". He still has not responded to the survey, and refuses to make concrete commitments. We are distrustful, because he will not go on record with specific promises, most particularly with regard to Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment.
On the other hand, we retain one major reservation for candidate Dan Maes too, and that is that he believes embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) can be allowed within limited circumstances. Despite his promise to support Personhood, this position is incompatible with the Personhood position, because it means he supports "limited" killing of unborn children. We will continue to dialogue with him on this, and we're hopeful that he will come around to our point of view once he has more time to examine the issue. Please encourage him to do so.
Constitution Party candidate Benjamin Goss has responded to our survey with 7 of 7 questions answered correctly!
U.S. Senate
Not much information to add, here.
Candidate Tom Wiens has promised to respond to the survey, and sounds like he intends to answer properly, but we still have not received his survey (he is petitioning on, and won't be a candidate at the assembly).
We are still concerned about Jane Norton's stated support for abortion exceptions, and she has not yet supported Personhood or responded to the survey. Please encourage her to take a stand on these issues, but for now we do not believe her positions qualify her as pro-life.
Candidates Ken Buck, Cleve Tidwell and Steve Barton are considered pro-life (only Tidwell has returned his candidate survey -- please encourage the others to do so!).
Treasurer Race
We still have not heard from JJ Ament one way or another on Personhood, or on the candidate survey. He claims to be pro-life, but so far this is only a claim. Please encourage him to return the survey.
Candidate Ali Hasan holds positions which support the killing of some unborn children, which means we do not consider him pro-life. At one point he seemed to be trying to run as a pro-life candidate. He remains open to dialogue, though, and we intend to follow through with him.
(Note added May 16: Ali Hasan's recent mailer implies that CRTL supports him, but we do not support any candidate who is not 100% pro-life, which means answering at least 6 out of 7 questions of our survey correctly - Hasan answered only 3 correctly. More info can be found in our earlier candidate survey post here: http://coloradorighttolife.blogspot.com/2010/03/pre-caucus-update-candidate-positions.html - CRTL still has not heard from JJ Ament as to whether he supports Personhood, and have not received his survey, nor have we heard from Stapleton)
We have not heard anything from Walker Stapleton, and have no reason to believe he is pro-life.
Congressional District 2
Candidate Bob Brancato has indicated he intends to respond to our survey, but we have not received his survey yet.
Congressional District 4
Diggs Brown states on his website that he is pro-life, but we believe he has suspended his candidacy.
Cory Gardner and Tom Lucero both responded 7 of 7 to our survey.
Congressional District 7
We have not yet heard from either Ryan Frazier or Lang Sias in this important race. Please encourage them to return their surveys, or at least to take a public stand on the Personhood Amendment, Amendment 62.
Republican candidate Mike Sheely did return his survey, and answered correctly on 7 of 7 questions!
State Senate District 2
Republican candidate Kevin Grantham has responded to our survey, answering 7 of 7 questions correctly!
Grantham faces primary opponents, but we have not heard from them.
State Senate District 3
Republican candidate Alexander Lucero-Mugatu has responded to our survey, responding correctly to 6 of 7 questions. His response to question #2, on rape & incest exceptions, makes us think he does not necessarily support prohibiting abortion for rape or incest (which undermines the Personhood of the unborn child), but we will work with him on these apparent exceptions. For now, it remains a red flag, and we hope that a supporter will be able to speak with him about this.
Mugatu faces a Republican primary, but we have not heard from his opponents.
State Senate District 5
Republican candidate Wayne Wolf has responded to our survey with 7 of 7 questions answered correctly! He did indicate a possible exception for certain regulations, but it sounds like he is very close to our position, and we can work with him on defining specifics.
Wolf faces a Republican primary, but we have not heard from his opponent.
State House District 35
Candidate Edgar Antillon indicated he would be responding to our survey, but we have not received it yet. He says he is pro-life.
State House District 57
Republican candidate Randy Baumgardner responded to our survey, answering 6 of 7 questions correctly (he may have missed question #2 -- we'll follow up with him on this question, regarding exceptions to allow abortion for rape & incest).
As we said earlier, we have heard from dozens more candidates than those listed here -- click the link at the top of the page to see a more comprehensive list (though some information on this list may supersede that information).
From elsewhere....
In addition to these candidates, it might be important to note that Congressional candidate Jeffrey Locke, running for Kansas' 2nd District, has also responded 7 of 7 to our survey (which would normally be covered by American Right to Life, though they have not been able to send surveys yet). Thank you, Jeff Locke!
Updated Information Coming
Please "watch this space!"
We will be posting updated information on candidates who have responded to our Candidate Survey, as well as more information on the Personhood Amendment (on the ballot as Amendment 62) to counter some disinformation being distributed against it.
We'll have this up within 24 hours so you'll be able to use it at your County Assembly.
We will be posting updated information on candidates who have responded to our Candidate Survey, as well as more information on the Personhood Amendment (on the ballot as Amendment 62) to counter some disinformation being distributed against it.
We'll have this up within 24 hours so you'll be able to use it at your County Assembly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
