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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
RYAN FRAZIER's two statements on Life:
#1: I am pro-life, from conception until natural death. I believe that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion. In fact, protecting life is a paramount duty of any lawful government. Within the Constitutional powers delegated to Congress, I would vote to oppose taxpayer funds being used to pay for abortions. I support parental consent and notification requirements. I believe that more should be done to encourage abstinence and adoption. Every life should be allowed to come into this world.
#2: Life - “My mother raised me to have faith and respect the sanctity of life.”
• I am pro-life, from conception until natural death.
• I believe that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion.
• I will oppose any legislation legalizing partial birth abortion.
• As your Congressman I will take steps to ensure our tax dollars are not used to fund abortions.
Freedom,
Where did you get this information, and how do you know it's accurate? His website has nothing about life/abortion that I can see.
Furthermore, I detect alot of careful phrases and parsing of words here. Here are some holes I could drive a truck through:
1) He makes no mention of Personhood. He says he is "pro-life" and believes human life is from "conception until natural death", but McCain's position was the same, and he still supported destroying developing embyros. Where does Ryan stand on Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
2) No constitutional right to an abortion. Does that mean he believes a state should be able to say yes or no on abortion? This is like saying a state should be able to say yes or no on slavery.
3) Opposing taxpayer funds for abortion. This is a position that many candidates hold, including candidates who "support a woman's right to choose".
4) "More should be done to encourage abstinence and adoption" sounds great, except this is a phrase often used by Democrats who want to "reduce" abortions without banning them or even restricting them.
5) Opposes partial birth abortion - so do many Democrats who support other abortions.
6) Parental consent and notification requirements are also limits short of Personhood, which are also supported by many Democrats. CRTL firmly holds the position that no pro-lifer should ever support these regulatory laws, because they always indicate a "right" to an abortion once those conditions are met.
7) "Protecting life is a paramount duty of any lawful government..." Great! But where's the "...and I will vote to enact those protections"? Aside from involving the parents, Ryan doesn't seem to say he'll enact protections.
Ryan may sincerely be pro-life, but I cannot tell from these statements -- they sound specific, but they actually leave alot of wiggle room.
What it comes down to is this: We don't really know where he stands without knowing his position on 7 very specific statements, and he can answer those by responding to CRTL's candidate survey. Can you ask him to do so?
If Ryan really is pro-life, we would love to have him on record. But if he's just trying to sound pro-life, so he gets votes from pro-liers, then we also have a duty to expose his real positions.
Agreed?
Furthermore, Ryan Frazier told Westword: "I am not a fan of abortion, but I struggle with whether it is the appropriate role of the government to place itself there."
That's not a pro-life position. That's like struggling with the role of the government to ban slavery.
Except for the statement you pointed to (which apparently comes from an Adams County survey), Frazier has a reputation among pro-lifers and pro-abortionists alike as "socially moderate".
We need to see his responses to the CRTL candidate survey, or else we don't really know where he stands, or what he'll promise to do.
And from the Aurora Sentinel:
"Frazier’s shown a more liberal bent in his approach on social issues, however, voicing support for benefits for same-sex couples and expressing a measured stance on government regulation of abortion."
Post a Comment