Candidate Positions - Pre-Primary June 2012

Note: 2014 Candidate Survey information (The information below is obsolete - from 2012)

Note to readers: Several updates have already been applied as new surveys have come in - please check back immediately before voting to see if your candidates have replied. 

UPDATE 6/12 - We've added a special note about Rep. Amy Stephens, who still says she's pro-life but her commitments and leadership on pro-life issues have been lacking at the Capitol or in her official duties.

The 2012 Colorado Right to Life survey asked 9 position questions of candidates, establishing their positions on government mandates such as the HHS rule that would force pro-life doctors and pharmacists to prescribe abortifacients, fetal homicide legislation, taxpayer funding of abortions, the protection of unborn children under the 5th and 14th Amendments, whether they believe in exceptions to allow abortions for rape or incest, their position on the Personhood Amendment, beliefs about euthanasia, beliefs about medical experiments that destroy a developing human being, and their position on whether it is sometimes okay to compromise in order to save some lives even though the compromise undermines the principle of a Right to Life (i.e. are anti-abortion regulations helping or hurting the fight to establish rights for all unborn children?).

No candidate is considered "pro-life" unless they support the Personhood amendment and have pledged to oppose all abortion (with the understanding that a doctor may take action to save a woman’s life while also trying to save the baby’s life, even if the baby’s survival is doubtful due to other factors). This is the only position consistent with the inalienable Right to Life of every innocent human being at every age or stage of development. Candidates who support "rape or incest exceptions" are NOT pro-life because there is never an excuse to kill an innocent child.

Congressional Candidates

Everyone wants to claim they’re pro-life if it benefits them. Often those claims are mere words.

There are two Republican Congressional primaries where one candidate is a demonstrated pro-life voter who supports the Personhood standard and Personhood legislation.

Congressional District 2

There is no reason to believe Eric Weissman (R-Boulder) is pro-life. However, his opponent in the primary, Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud) is pro-life and has been an ally of the pro-life movement for many years, has endorsed and signed petitions for all of Colorado’s Personhood Amendments.

Congressional District 5

There is a seemingly needless primary in CD 5 between Robert Blaha, who according to his website may support a Personhood standard (we do not have information to confirm this), but who may or may not be sincere. He is running against Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs) who is 100% pro-life and who not only supports Personhood on paper, but also has cosponsored Personhood legislation at the federal level. This is a major sign of commitment that Lamborn has been the most outspoken of all of Colorado’s Congressional delegation on this issue.

State Senate Candidates

State Senate District 4

Mark Scheffel (R) has not responded to the CRTL survey, but is believed to support Personhood. Please ask him to return his survey.

State Senate District 8

Rep. Randy Baumgardner (R) is 100% pro-life with no exceptions, and supports Personhood. He has responded to the CRTL survey with 9 out of 9 questions answered correctly. He is facing Sen. Jean White (R), who is known to be pro-choice, in the primary.

State Senate District 10

Owen Hill (R) is pro-life, supports Personhood, and responded to the CRTL survey with 8 out of 9 questions answered correctly (he still believes anti-abortion regulations are helpful, but is willing to listen further about how they undermine the Right to Life). He is in a primary with Rep. Larry Liston (R) who has never returned a CRTL survey, but who was the ONLY Republican in 2010 to respond to the Planned Parenthood survey, where he expressed support for taxpayer-funded abortion and opposed the Personhood of the unborn child. Liston also voted for a conscience-violating measure requiring pro-life doctors and pharmacists to provide “emergency contraception” (i.e. the abortifacient “morning after” pill). Update 6/6: Larry Liston exposed as taking both sides of Planned Parenthood funding and other key pro-life issues (i.e. he's lying).

State Senate District 12

Sen. Bill Cadman (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood, and responded to the CRTL survey with 9 out of 9 questions answered appropriately.

State Senate District 14

Syndi Anderson (R) has been contacted multiple times, but has not returned her CRTL survey. Her website has no indication that she is pro-life, nor do we have any other information to suggest she is.

State Senate District 17

Charlie Plagainos (R) is an unknown quantity. He has been contacted at least once, and has not returned his CRTL survey. His website has no indication that he is pro-life. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who claim to be pro-life but who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites.

State Senate District 18

Barry Thoma (R) responded to the CRTL survey without answering questions. He claimed to be opposed to Roe v. Wade, but indicated he wasn’t sure when unborn children should be protected under the law. He may believe he is pro-life, but he does not understand the issues at all. He appears to be pro-abortion with exceptions.

State Senate District 19

Lang Sias (R) has called himself pro-life, but has been contacted several times during 2010 and 2012 and has never answered a CRTL survey. His credentials and commitments are suspect. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who claim to be pro-life but who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites.

State Senate District 21

UPDATE 6/19: Francine Bigelow (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood, and answered correctly to 9 out of 9 questions on the CRTL survey.  We have not heard from Matthew Plichta, and must assume he is not pro-life.

State Senate District 22

Ken Summers (R), despite being a former pastor, Summers is NOT pro-life. He has voted for a conscience-violating measure requiring pro-life doctors and pharmacists to provide “emergency contraception” (i.e. the abortifacient “morning after” pill), and has responded angrily when asked about pro-life measures.

State Senate District 23

Vicki Marble (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood and answered 9 out of 9 questions on the CRTL survey correctly. She is in a primary contest against Rep. Glenn Vaad (R). Vaad signed the Personhood petition in 2010, but may have done so without conviction, as he has shown little other sign that he is pro-life and has never returned a CRTL survey. Vaad also voted for the conscience-violating “emergency contraception” measure. UPDATE 6/8: On the Christian Coalition survey, Glenn Vaad apparently indicated he supports Personhood (he did sign a Personhood petition in previous years).  However, to validate this he needs to answer the CRTL survey, which has specific wording meant to prevent wiggle room. Obviously, since his opponent is already rated 100% pro-life it would be in his interest to do so.

State Senate District 25

John Sampson (R) claims to be pro-life, but he has been contacted multiple times, and has not returned his CRTL survey. His website has no indication that he is pro-life. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who claim to be pro-life but who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites. The only thing we know about him is that he will not support the Personhood Amendment, or discuss the issue further.

State Senate District 26

David Kerber (R) has never even claimed to be pro-life. He has not answered the CRTL survey even after multiple contacts and has refused to sign the Personhood petition. Kerber is NOT pro-life.

State Senate District 27

Rep. Dave Balmer (R) has expressed strong pro-life commitments and is pro-Personhood, but has not returned his CRTL survey. Please encourage him to do so.

State Senate District 28

Art Carlson (R) and John Lyons (R) are in a primary against each other. Both claim to be pro-life, but neither has responded to the CRTL survey even after numerous contacts. They are not believed to support Personhood. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who claim to be pro-life but who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites.

State Senate District 29

Bill Ross (R) has been contacted twice and has not responded to the CRTL survey. We have no information to indicate he is pro-life. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites.

State Senate District 31

Brandon Kelley (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions.  Please ask him to contact us.

State Senate District 32

Roger Logan is a recent entrant as a Republican candidate. Nothing is known about him and he does not appear to have a website. If you could put him in touch with us, or if you know anything about him, please let us know.

State Senate District 33

Jason DeBerry is a recent entrant as a Republican candidate. Nothing is known about him and he does not appear to have a website. If you could put him in touch with us, or if you know anything about him, please let us know.

State Senate District 35

Larry Crowder (R) has been contacted twice through his website about the CRTL survey but still has not responded. If you know  please encourage him to return his CRTL survey.

State House Candidates

State House District 1

There is a primary between two Republicans, James Wildt and John Kidd. Please ask them to return their candidate surveys.

State House District 2

If you know TJ Tyrrell (R) please encourage him to contact CRTL.

State House District 3

If you know Brian Watson (R) please encourage him to contact CRTL.

State House District 4

David Dobson (R-Denver) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood, and answered the CRTL survey with 9 of 9 questions answered correctly. Update 6/11 - Dobson has a primary against Stuart Siffring, who we don't believe is pro-life.

State House District 5

If you know Ronnie Nelson (R) or Matthew Zielinski (R), please encourage them to contact CRTL.

State House District 6

Robert Hardaway (R) is a recent entrant and nothing is known about him. Please ask him to contact CRTL.

State House District 7

If you know Travis French (R) please encourage him to contact CRTL.

State House District 8

If you know Alan Johnson (R) please encourage him to contact CRTL.

State House District 9

If you know Celeste Gamache (R) please encourage her to contact CRTL.

State House District 10

If you know William Eckert (R) please encourage him to contact CRTL.

State House District 11

We have not heard from Ellyn Hilliard (R) despite 3 attempts to contact her. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites.

State House District 12

If you know Russ Lyman (R) please encourage him to contact CRTL.

State House District 13

If you know Adam Ochs (R) please encourage him to contact CRTL.

State House District 14

Daniel Nordberg (R) has no opposition. He has been an aide to pro-Personhood Congressman Doug Lamborn, and has also been associated with the pro-life Republican Study Committee, so we assume he is inclined to be pro-life. If you know him please ask him to return his CRTL survey.

State House District 15

American Constitution Party candidate Michael Edstrom is presumably pro-life, but please encourage him to contact us. Rep. Mark Waller (R) claims to be pro-life, but has not supported Personhood, and is not believed to be truly pro-life.

State House District 16

Rep. Janak Joshi (R) says he is pro-life on his site, but his support of Personhood is unknown. He was very cooperative with CRTL in pushing a non-objectionable, non-compromised, Fetal Homicide measure through the legislature this year – the first time one passed either chamber of the Colorado legislature (it failed in the Senate a couple of weeks ago). He is also associated with the pro-Personhood Republican Study Committee. We would like to have him on record with regard to his commitments, so please encourage him to return his survey.

State House District 17

UPDATE 6/14: Mark Barker (R) is pro-life and supports Personhood.  He responded favorably to CRTL’s survey in 2010, and this year he indicated his positions have not changed and will not. Barry Forest Pace (ACP) is also presumably pro-life. Please encourage both to return their 2012 survey – we need to confirm both candidates’ commitments.

State House District 18

Jennifer George (R) may or may not be pro-life. The American Constitution Party has a candidate, Amy Fedde, who is presumably pro-life. Please encourage both to return their surveys.

State House District 19

This is one of the most fascinating races in the legislature this year. Rep. Amy Stephens (R – House Majority Leader) is being challenged by Rep. Marsha Looper (R) who were redistricted into the same district together. Rep. Marsha Looper (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood, and returned the CRTL survey with 9 of 9 questions answered correctly.  Looper also helped lead a fight to de-fund Planned Parenthood in the State budget. Looper is framing this as a conservative vs. moderate fight, and so far as CRTL can tell she’s entirely correct.

Stephens used to work for Focus on the Family, but she also used to work in the abortion industry. With rare exceptions, she has remained silent and disinterested in pro-life issues in the past 6 years at the Capitol, except when she sponsored a bill to silence pro-life protestors exercising their rights to free speech on public sidewalks. She  enabled Obamacare, and its taxpayer-paid abortion provisions, by sponsoring HB-200. After 3 attempts to contact her in 2012 (and at least a dozen, total, since 2008), CRTL is very concerned that Stephens is a FAKE pro-lifer. Update 6/12: See "Special Note About Amy Stephens" at the bottom of this blog post for more information.

Tim Biolchini (ACP) is also presumably pro-life. Please encourage Stephens and Biolchini to return their CRTL surveys.

State House District 20

Rep. Bob Gardner (R) has never responded to a CRTL survey, and also supported the conscience-violating “emergency contraceptive” legislation which forces pro-life doctors and pharmacists to provide the abortion-causing “morning after pill.” Gardner is NOT pro-life. Donna Burdick (ACP) is presumably pro-life. Please encourage her to return her CRTL survey.

State House District 21

A rare “can’t lose” situation. Al Sweet (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood and responded correctly to 9 of 9 questions. Lois Landgraf (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood, and responded correctly to 9 of 9 questions.

State House District 22

Justin Everett (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood, and responded correctly to 9 of 9 questions. He is being challenged in the primary by Loren Bauman (R) who is pro-abortion.

State House District 23

Rick Enstrom (R) has failed to respond to 3 attempts to contact him, and has not returned his survey. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites.

State House District 24

E.V. Leyendecker (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions.  Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 25

Cheri Gerou (R) is NOT regarded as pro-life. She has never responded to a CRTL survey and is considered an unreliable vote on even the least of pro-life votes.

State House District 26

Chuck McConnell (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions. Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 27

Libby Szabo (R) has not returned surveys since 2008, but we believe she probably supports Personhood. Her silence is disconcerting. Please encourage her to return her CRTL survey.

State House District 28

Amy Attwood (R) is probably pro-life, but we have asked her for a survey response 3 times so that we can establish this, and she still has not responded. Please encourage her to return her CRTL survey.

State House District 29

Robert Ramirez (R) has responded favorably to CRTL’s survey in the past. Please encourage him to return his CRTL survey to make sure he’s still with us.

State House District 30

If this is the same person who ran for Congress (CD7) in 2010, Mike Sheely (R) has responded favorably to CRTL’s survey in the past. Please encourage him to return his CRTL survey.

State House District 31

Beth Humenik (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish her positions. Please ask her to contact us.

State House District 32

Paul Reimer (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions. Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 33

David Pigott (R) has failed to respond to 3 attempts to contact him, and has not returned his survey. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites.

State House District 34

Jodina Widhalm (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish her positions. Please ask her to contact us.

State House District 35

Brian Vande Krol (R) is pro-abortion (he was mis-identified in 2010 as pro-Personhood, but set the record straight with a reporter that he supports “a woman’s right to choose”).

State House District 36

Jim Parker (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions. Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 37

Rep. Spencer Swalm (R) claims to be pro-life, but has never responded to a CRTL survey, being approached more than 6 times over 6 years time, and supported the conscience-violating "emergency contraception" mandate in the legislature. His commitment to pro-life issues is doubtful.

State House District 38

Kathleen Conti (R) responded favorably to CRTL’s survey in 2010, however general opinion now seems to be that she lied about her beliefs on our survey and a number of others (she campaigned as a pro-life, fiscal conservative, and she appears to be neither). She is regarded as an unreliable vote on pro-life issues.

State House District 39

This primary seems on its surface to be a contest between two pro-lifers. Both Polly Lawrence (R) and Lu Ann Busse (R) are pro-life, and have expressed support for Personhood. Polly Lawrence answered correctly on 9 of 9 questions, Lu Ann Busse responded correctly on 8 of 9, with a reservation on opposing anti-abortion regulations which she believes are a worthwhile compromise, but which CRTL believes undermine the concept of a Right to Life. On paper, Polly Lawrence seems the better pro-lifer, but Lu Ann Busse has the stronger long-term record in supporting life issues. In 2010, Polly Lawrence refused to support Personhood and may have expressed other positions inconsistent with her positions on the 2012 survey. It is our hope that she has sincerely changed her positions, and would support Personhood positions in the legislature, but ultimately this comes down to whether an individual voter trusts her change of heart. The survey can only record a candidate’s promises, and cannot read their minds or hearts.

State House District 40

Cynthia Acree (R) is believed to be pro-life, but she has not responded to the CRTL survey. Please encourage her to do so.

State House District 41

Adrienne Webb-Markopolous (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish her positions. Please ask her to contact us. There is also Independent Maria Fay, who we know nothing about.

State House District 42

Update 6/4: Michael Donald (R) is 100% pro-life and supports Personhood, responding correctly to 9 of 9 questions on the survey. Democrat Rep. Rhonda Fields (D) has become very shrill in opposing pro-life efforts.

State House District 43

Speaker Frank McNulty (R) has said in the past he supports Personhood, but he has taken action as leader of the House Republicans which cast doubt upon his commitment to taking pro-life action. He has never responded to a CRTL survey. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites.

State House District 44

Rep. Chris Holbert (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood, and responded to the CRTL survey with 9 of 9 questions answered correctly. He has also become a stand-out leader of the pro-life legislators in the House.

State House District 45

Rep. Carole Murray (R) is believed to be pro-life, but has not responded to the CRTL survey. Please encourage her to return her survey.

State House District 46

Jerry Denney (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions. Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 47

Clarice Navarro-Ratzlaff (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish her positions. Please ask her to contact us. Candidate Ray Watts (R) is 100% pro-life, and responded to the CRTL survey with 9 of 9 questions answered correctly, but has apparently lost at the district assembly and will not be on the ballot.

State House District 48

Both Stephen Humphrey (R) and Jeffrey Hare (R) are pro-life and support Personhood. Hare responded to the CRTL survey with 9 of 9 questions answered correctly. Humphrey, with 8 of 9 questions answered correctly (again not agreeing with CRTL’s position against anti-abortion regulations which undermine the concept of a Right to Life).

State House District 49

Perry Buck (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish her positions. Please ask her to contact us.

State House District 50

Arthur “Skip” Carlson (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions. Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 51

Rep. Brian DelGrosso (R) is believed to support Personhood, but we have not heard from him. Please encourage him to return his CRTL survey.

State House District 52

Bob Morain (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions. Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 53

Jonathan Fye (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions. Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 54

UPDATE 6/8: Jared Wright (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood, and responded correctly to 9 out of 9 questions on the survey.

State House District 55

Update 6/4: Rep. Ray Scott (R) is 100% pro-life and supports Personhood, responding correctly to all questions on the survey. There is also Virgil Fenn (Libertarian) who may or may not be pro-life (most Libertarians are not). Please encourage both to respond to the CRTL survey.

State House District 56

Rep. Kevin Priola (R) is believed to be pro-life, but has not responded to the CRTL survey. Please encourage him to do so.

State House District 57

Bob Rankin (R) did not reply to the CRTL survey in 2010, and has not in 2012, even after 3 contacts. It is believed he is not pro-life (his defeated opponent in the primary was not either). Please encourage him to respond to the CRTL survey.

State House District 58

Don Coram (R) has never responded to the CRTL survey, even after 3 contacts. Please encourage him to contact us. CRTL is always skeptical of candidates who don’t return their surveys or self-identify as pro-life on their websites.

State House District 59

J. Paul Brown (R) is 100% pro-life, supports Personhood, and responded correctly to 9 out of 9 questions on the CRTL survey.

State House District 60

Steve Collins (R) is pro-life, and supports Personhood, responding correctly to 8 of the 9 questions, and answering favorably to the 9th (opposing anti-abortion regulations) with a minor reservation. It sounds like he will work with CRTL to avoid compromised legislation. James Wilson (R) has not responded to the CRTL survey. Please encourage him to contact us.

State House District 61

Robert Petrowsky (ACP) is 100% pro-life, and supports Personhood, responding correctly to 9 out of 9 questions on the CRTL survey. Debra Irvine (R) and David Justice (R) both need to contact CRTL to establish their positions. Please ask them to contact us.

State House District 62

Tim Walters (R) needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions. Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 63

Lori Saine (R) appears to be pro-life, but still needs to establish her particular positions with CRTL. She is in contact with CRTL and we will report on her positions once we have established them. Michael Mazzocco (R) is running as a write-in candidate but needs to contact CRTL to establish his positions. Please ask him to contact us.

State House District 64

Tim Dore (R) is pro-life, and supports Personhood, having responded to the CRTL survey with 8 out of 9 correct answers. We will continue to work with him on his support for compromised anti-abortion regulations (which some pro-life legal scholars believe legitimizes abortion and doesn’t treat the unborn child as a Person).

State House District 65

Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R) has responded favorably to previous CRTL surveys. Please ask him to contact us so we can establish for sure that he’s still with us.

**Special Note About Rep. Amy Stephens

Rep. Amy Stephens is trying to campaign as a pro-lifer in a conservative district against another conservative Republican, Rep. Marsha Looper, in the same district. CRTL has claimed Stephens is questionably pro-life, based on 6 years of observation where she has shown little to no sign of being pro-life.  Stephens, needing pro-life votes, is fighting back against this impression, belatedly trying to sound like she is an active pro-lifer, and as if constituents can expect her to "continue" pro-life leadership in her 7th and 8th years in the legislature when she hasn't shown any such initiative in her first 6.  Here are several reasons why we do not believe Amy Stephens is pro-life:

1) Rep. Amy Stephens collaborated with the Obamacare structure by jointly authoring and sponsoring SB 200 with Democrat Sen. Betty Boyd -- one of the most pro-abortion legislators in Colorado.  SB 200 would have implemented the terms of Obamacare by setting up a statewide healthcare exchange.  This was done at a time when the state Attorney General and thousands of other officials around the US were trying to prevent implementation of Obamacare by means of non-collaboration, lawsuits and stonewalling.  Stephens could have added an opt-out option, but refused to do so, and also refused to support other legislation that would have opted Colorado out of the Obamacare structure.  Obamacare includes as part of its requirements taxpayer funding for abortions and abortifacient birth control.

2) Stephens claims to be pro-life, and has a list of endorsers who say she's pro-life, but all of them point to her service at Focus on the Family from more than a decade ago, and not to more recent initiatives or action.  To the best of our knowledge, she has never either sponsored or voted for a pro-life bill while in the legislature.  If she had, wouldn't it be on her website?

3) If Stephens is pro-life, why didn't she respond to any of the Colorado Right to Life surveys, in 2008, 2010 or 2012?  Why avoid your pro-life allies?  Most pro-life representatives responded to the survey at least once during those several years.  Most pro-life representatives wanted to be on record as supporting the Personhood Amendment.  Stephens never wanted to be on record with CRTL.

4) Stephens also refused to answer the Pikes Peak Citizens for Life survey in both 2010 and 2012.  They do not consider candidates pro-life if they do not answer the survey.  This is the most prominent local pro-life group in Colorado Springs -- why would she not want to be on record with them?

5) Stephens also refused to answer the Colorado Christian Coalition survey in 2012.  This is another well-known and nationally connected family values group -- why would she not want to be on record with them, especially in a year when she faces conservative opposition from Looper?

6) NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Stephens a 67% rating in 2008.

7) Stephens claims she's never seen Rep. Looper "at a pro-life rally, fundraising dinner, seminar, strategy meeting, or training session."  This is ironic, since none of us has ever seen Stephens at any of these activities either!  It's possible she's attended such things in Colorado Springs, but nothing at the Captiol or any statewide pro-life marches, meetings, fundraising dinners, etc.  How could she see Looper at one if SHE wasn't there?  If Stephens attended these rallies or meetings, are there photos?  Why wouldn't she post evidence if it exists?

8) The Colorado Springs Independent once published a story saying Rep. Amy Stephens had attended the 2009 Colorado March for Life, but later issued a correction saying they were mistaken: "Correction: State Rep. Amy Stephens was misidentified in the original publication of this story as having attended the rally. She did not. The Colorado Independent deeply regrets the error." Why would the Independent even issue a correction if Amy Stephens had not asked for one?  Why would she not want to be associated with the March for Life?

9) Stephens cosponsored a bill to silence pro-life protestors and prevent them from exercising free speech on public sidewalks.  This was specifically a reaction against a pro-life tactic of "shaming" abortion doctors, executives, and construction executives who built abortion facilities.  This tactic was used effectively by anti-slavery activists to shame pro-slavery merchants in front of the public, so people would know they had blood on their hands.





**Please note: Republicans predominate this list because they are considered the most likely to be pro-life. Members of other parties, especially the American Constitution Party, may be pro-life. However, we have yet to hear from a single candidate from the Democrat or Libertarian parties who is pro-life. Most Democrats who entered early in the race were sent a copy of the survey in February and will be contacted again before the November election. Any candidate wishing to respond to the survey may contact office@coloradorighttolife.org for a copy.

Legislative Scorecard 2007-2008

Colorado Right to Life has examined the legislative voting records of all Colorado legislators over the past two years in light of our stand on Personhood – grading people up for positive votes, and voting them down for votes that undermine the Personhood of the unborn child (even if it’s a supposedly “pro-life” bill which proposes to regulate the abortion industry).

Before we go on, we just want to remind you that a post about the Presidential Election is up next…

What we’ve found is that those legislators who scored highest – because of several positive votes that did not undermine Personhood – are often the same legislators who at other times undermine Personhood with votes for regulation. Clearly they do not understand that a “right” (to life) is something that cannot be regulated, and the government has no right to decide when it is granted and when it can be taken away.

This poses CRTL with a dilemma, because if we “endorse” or give one of these candidates an “A”, it confuses the whole issue about whether or not they actually support a guarantee of the Right to Life in law. We’ve decided, instead, to simply release raw data on specific votes or positions rather than try to place a value on these hit-or-miss voting records.

One positive measure is who has endorsed the Amendment 48 Personhood Initiative. Some of these legislators still undermine Personhood with compromised votes, but at least they can be seen coming in the right direction.

(click the image to see a clearer copy)


Remember there may be good candidates running for office who are not on these lists, because they may not have been elected yet! A number of the unelected candidates indicated they would not support compromised legislation, and have also endorsed Personhood.

This assessment deals primarily with Republican legislators who voted right or wrong. As a general rule, Democrats can be assumed to have voted wrong – the highest scoring Democrat senator cannot be considered a pro-lifer by any stretch, and the highest scoring Democrat member of the House recently switched parties from the Republicans.

Sadly, the same assumption of stance cannot be made of Republicans, since the lowest scoring Republican (Rep. Ellen Roberts of Durango) is well below many of even the liberal Democrats – she might as well be one!

(click the image to see a clearer copy)

X = voted wrong on bill; XX = voted wrong more than once, or cosponsored bill; More X's = sponsored bill or voted wrong more than twice (i.e. in committees, plus floor vote -- usually a combination of votes or sponsorship)

Shockingly, the Republican House Minority Leader, Mike May of Parker, is the 5th lowest scoring Republican, barely even scoring in the positive numbers! He supported “emergency contraception” mandates, and was even the primary sponsor of the bill to require all pre-teen schoolchildren to be vaccinated against the HPV venereal disease (a move which CRTL testified would encourage underage pregnancy, and therefore underage abortions). This kind of voting behavior from the leading Republican only demonstrates how much they take Christian and pro-life voters for granted.

Details:

SB 07-060 Emergency Contraception – This bill requires medical professionals who treat rape victims to tell them there is emergency contraception available that will “prevent pregnancy” (which we all know terminates a pregnancy – a chemical abortion). Those 20 Republican legislators who voted for this will tell you they modified the language of the bill so it specified that it did not refer to abortifacients. But that’s a silly argument – there is no such thing as “emergency contraception” which is not an abortifacient, and several of their Republican colleagues realized this and still voted against the bill. Gov. Ritter signed this bill into law.

SB 07-080 Requiring HPV Vaccine in Middle School – Colorado Right to Life testified against this bill because we believed it would encourage kids to think they were “immune” to STDs, and therefore they could have free sex, and the resulting pregnancies would increase the number of abortions. The House sponsor of this bill was the Republican Minority Leader, Mike May (R-Parker). Rep. May was told we would oppose it, and was asked to drop the bill, and he refused. This bill did not make it out of committee in the House, partly because of CRTL lobbying.

SJR 07-031 Reproductive Health Programs – This NARAL-sponsored resolution (a non-binding statement urging compliance) encouraged state government to use its power to promote “family planning,” which naturally (to the sponsors) includes use of various abortifacients, as well as surgical abortion. Two GOP representatives and 4 GOP senators voted for it. The only one who is not typically identified as a pro-abortion Republican is Sen. Shawn Mitchell, who is a compromiser, but generally supports responsible pro-life positions. No idea why he voted the way he did.

SB 08-003 Gov’t Funding for Reproductive Health – This NARAL-sponsored legislation would allow low-income Coloradans to use taxpayer funds for “reproductive health” and “family planning” programs. Gov. Ritter signed this bill into law. Two GOP House members and 3 GOP senators voted for this bill.

SB 08-192 Residential Picketing – This bill was aimed directly at Colorado Right to Life and allied organizations (most particularly, the Collaborator’s Project). It was aimed to restrict the free speech rights of picketers who protest outside the homes of abortionists or executives whose companies are building abortion centers (like AuschWeitz, the nation’s largest killing center, which was built by Weitz Construction). Several “pro-life” legislators felt it was important to vote for this bill (it was written/sponsored by pro-abortion Sen. Steve Ward) because they don’t want to support “extremists” (those of us who want abortion to be in the public eye, and who want abortion promoters to understand exactly what they’re doing to little children). While most Republicans who voted for this legislation are known to be pro-abortion, the big surprises on the list of supporters were Sen. Andy McElhany (Sen. Minority Leader), Sen. Shawn Mitchell and Rep. Amy Stephens (formerly a public policy expert at Focus on the Family), who obviously felt their responsibility was to promote quiet neighborhoods, rather than to stop the killing of unborn children. Gov. Ritter signed this into law, which does not stop the picketing, but places significant restrictions upon it.

HJR 08-1009 UN Womens’ Rights Resolution – This resolution (non-binding support) recommended support for the United Nations’ definitions of “womens’ rights,” which specifically means the “right” to abortion, “controlling their own bodies (and those of their unborn children)” and “reproductive health care.” Three GOP representatives and one senator (Steve Ward again) voted for this.

There were other votes related to abortion during these two years, such as Sen. Schultheis’ SB 95, which was a compromised informed consent and ultrasound bill (watch an ultrasound, and then you can kill the baby). We know those legislators who voted for this bill were well-meaning, even though we attempted to educate them about what was wrong with the bill. This bill, in particular, is why we decided not to issue any endorsements of these legislators this year – because they still do not understand the Right to Life.

Sen. Renfroe, in 2007, also ran a bill that would have totally banned abortion. However, it never made it out of committee, and Sen. Renfroe and Sen. Mitchell were the only legislators who were able to vote for it.

We welcome any questions you might have with regard to legislators or the legislation!

Yes, Information Is Coming!

Yes, CRTL does intend to publish more information on the election, including the results of our Legislative Scorecard, though without "letter grades" -- I'll explain once we get there.

Secondly, please urge your local candidates to send in their CRTL Candidate Questionnaires if you don't see them already listed as responding. This is critically important, because there ARE voters who will NOT vote for them if they have not responded!

Thirdly, please remember to support us financially. We're really wanting to have as much funding as possible for the Personhood (Amendment 48) campaign, and every dollar helps! See www.coloradorighttolife.org and locate the Donate link.

Lastly, please pray that God's will be done in this election. CRTL's positions are not typical positions held by "traditional" pro-life groups, and whether they're right, or we are, we DO want God's will to be done. Just keep in mind God's will may be that some supposed "pro-lifers" should be humbled for not doing his will!

Thanks! We'll be in touch in just a few days, so you'll have relevant information for the early voting and absentee balloting.

Sen. Ted Harvey and Sec. State Mike Coffman (URGENT 6th District Clarification)

In a previous blog post, we reported that we believed both Sen. Ted Harvey and Sec. State Mike Coffman hold uncompromised positions on Personhood and Life issues, according to the CRTL candidate questionnaire. Sadly, we must correct this information.

We now know that Sec. State Mike Coffman is the only candidate for the GOP 6th District Congressional primary who holds uncompromised views on abortion, and the only candidate who has promised not to continue supporting compromised legislation.

In two conversations today with CRTL officers or high-profile activists, Sen. Ted Harvey explained and clarified that he would still support compromised child-killing regulations of the type which he wrote and passed before (a compromised Parental Notification bill, which in essence said if you notify the parents, then it's okay to kill the baby). We believed he had promised not to support legislation like this in the future, but apparently he was being misleading in his "promise." Rep. Kevin Lundberg at least had the honesty to admit on his survey that he still believed in supporting such regulations, and earned a 6 out of 7 on our questionnaire. We hope both of these legislators will be open to hearing us out in a second discussion (both legislators attended CRTL's 2007 Legislative Luncheon and heard us explain why child killing regulations are wrong), and will eventually come around.

In these 2 conversations today, Sen. Harvey explained that he believed his Parental Notification measure was the right thing to do, and he would support legislation like that again. He also supported Sen. Dave Schultheis' Abortion Ultrasound bill (i.e. show the mom an ultrasound and if she still wants the abortion then you can kill the baby), and would apparently do so again.

We believed that by indicating on his questionnaire response he would not support "...and then you can kill the baby" legislation, he was being sincere. We now know differently.

It appears that Harvey was being intentionally deceptive when he indicated support for "point 7" on our questionnaire ("Will you refuse to support any legislation that would allow abortion, even if it is a 'pro-life bill' (i.e. legislation that says "Abortion shall be prohibited unless...")" Ted's answer (he did not specify yes/no) was "I would never support any legislation which says 'Abortion shall be prohibited unless...'"

Harvey's answer on this point was apparently specific to that wording (which, of course, would never specifically appear in any legislation), and not to the spirit of what we meant. He was trying to "get by" on a technicality, and claim support for CRTL's position, when it apparently was not true and his commitment was false. This, naturally, is a very disturbing development.

Which brings up another couple of points which it now seems necessary to discuss. Ted Harvey has claimed on his website and in literature that he was CRTL's "Legislator of the Year," and otherwise implying strong support from CRTL. The "Legislator of the Year" designation is true, but at the same time deceptive. That award was for a previous year, when he skewered pro-abortion Democrats on the House floor in a nationally publicized speech regarding Ms. Giana Jessen -- the young lady who survived a saline abortion, but who now suffers from abortion-related Muscular Dystrophy. We still applaud Ted for his action on that day, but it is inappropriate and unethical that he would imply our support and endorsement, when he knows he does not agree with our uncompromised stance on legislation.

Harvey has also claimed to be "the only proven conservative leader" which is a stretch of the truth -- Mike Coffman has a long record as a strong pro-lifer and a strong conservative. Ted also claimed at one time (he may have stopped saying it) he's the only candidate who has carried pro-life legislation. That's also not true -- Mike Coffman did so when he was a legislator, many years ago.

The combination of Ted Harvey's deceptiveness, and his promise to continue supporting the "child-killing regulations" of the past, mean that CRTL now has serious reservations about him. It's clear, at least, that he cannot truthfully claim he is currently an uncompromised pro-lifer, and therefore should not claim CRTL support.

We and Ted have had a long conversation on these subjects, and we believed he had come around to our point of view. This isn't true, though we hold out hope that he will continue listening to CRTL and our positions, and that he will eventually come to agree with us, and change his voting behavior.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg, Sen. Dave Schultheis, and Sen. Ted Harvey all remain some of the most likely legislators to eventually convert to the uncompromised, non-regulating point of view CRTL now holds. Sadly, none of them are at that point yet.

Thankfully, Sec. State Mike Coffman has met with CRTL board members for long and pointed discussions on these issues, and has seemed to understand, and has furthermore promised not to support compromised legislation. Mike Coffman also has a decades-long history (20 years or more) of not just support, but active involvement in the pro-life community, over and above what would be expected of any typical Republican official.

Mike Coffman has been a good and consistent friend to CRTL for many years, up to and including the last couple of years when even CRTL's strongest legislative supporters (including Harvey) found excuses not to attend CRTL events.

6th Congressional - Pro Life Candidates

IMPORTANT NOTE: SEE CHANGES AT BOTTOM, DATED MON 8/11, AND NEW POST CLARIFYING THAT SEN. TED HARVEY'S POSITION IS NOT UNCOMPROMISED!

As will be explained soon, we have had discussions over whether it will be helpful to publish the results of our Legislative Scorecard publicly, as there are some complicated matters that need to be explained and cannot be left to a simple letter score.

But we believe it is important to explain our findings on the critical 6th District (south Metro Denver, Elbert Co., etc.) Republican Primary.

There are two of the four candidates on the ballot whose pro-life records we have no doubts about.

Sec. State Mike Coffman and Sen. Ted Harvey have both responded to the Colorado Right to Life candidate questionnaire. The other two candidates have not. Both Sen. Harvey and Secretary Coffman have carried pro-life bills in their legislative career. Some of the bills carried by both are not what CRTL would today ask for, but they are what CRTL asked for at the time, and we believe both candidates were sincerely meaning to do what was best for the lives of unborn children. Both Sec. Coffman and Sen. Harvey have promised (by answering our questionnaire) not to support "compromised" legislation in the future (i.e. legislation that allows abortions to occur once certain regulations have been met -- what we call "and then you can kill the baby" legislation, which we firmly believe entrenches the notion of a "right" to abortion in government/legal policy and in the minds of the public). We believe either of these candidates would serve Colorado pro-lifers well in Congress (THIS HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST 24 HOURS - MIKE COFFMAN REMAINS THE ONLY CANDIDATE FOR THE 6TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT WHO AGREES WITH CRTL ON UNCOMPROMISED LEGISLATION -- SEE NEW POST ON TED HARVEY!).

It is important to note that Wil Armstrong, another candidate for this seat, has also endorsed Amendment 48 (the Personhood Initiative), and has expressed (recently) a fairly strong pro-life position. However, he has not responded to the CRTL questionnaire even after several requests to do so (including directly on the radio), has never stated a strong pro-life position on his website, has seemed to treat the pro-life issue as an afterthought in his campaign (as have most GOP candidates in the recent past), and we are deeply concerned by the endorsement he has touted from Gov. Mitt Romney, who as many of you know has a long and continuing record of supporting abortion (he has flip-flopped on life issues depending on who he's talking to, and contrary to his claim of having converted to the pro-life side in 2004, he has supported abortion "rights" (including public funding) as recently as 2006. You may see American Right to Life Action's widely broadcast TV ads here. Romney is simply NOT pro-life, and we are concerned by Wil Armstrong's close affiliation with him. CRTL has no reason to believe Armstrong's pro-life views are anything more than an election year promise which we have no guarantee he will keep.

Lastly, Sen. Steve Ward has falsely claimed to be pro-life. His record over the past 2 years in CRTL's Legislative Scorecard earned him a "D" rating. Ward voted TWICE to support an "emergency contraception" bill which would require medical professionals to inform rape victims of the availability of means to kill their babies with abortifacient drugs such as RU-486 or Plan B (commonly known as "morning after pills"). CRTL's position is that any means, chemical or otherwise, to kill an already-conceived baby is nothing less than murder. We also believe that exceptions to allow abortion in case of rape or incest is a false compassion that does not help the mother, which kills an innocent human being, and can cover up the crimes of the father. Furthermore, Ward wrote a bill which was specifically directed at impairing the Free Speech rights of pro-life protestors who were holding up executives from Weitz Construction for ridicule in front of the public and his neighbors for being an abortion collaborator and building the largest abortion center then under construction in the United States (otherwise and foreverafter known as AuschWeitz). These votes can never be construed as "pro-life", and Sen. Ward clearly does not understand the Right to Life. Neither does he support Personhood for unborn children.

If you have any questions about these issues, please feel free to comment to these points, and we would be glad to respond.

EDITOR'S NOTE - MON 8/11: SEN. TED HARVEY HAS CLARIFIED IN TWO CONVERSATIONS WITH CRTL MEMBERS THAT HE STILL SUPPORTS "AND THEN YOU CAN KILL THE BABY" REGULATIONS. SEE NEW POST ON THIS SUBJECT, POSTING IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS.