This blog has been superseded by new information (which is why the links are gray). Fully updated information as of mid-October 2010 is available by clicking here.
You may still look up our detailed comments on candidates in the following places:
Governor & Senate Candidates (plus key State Senate races)
Pro-life vs. pro-abortion candidates in 3 Congressional Primaries (candidates are lying!)
Legislative Candidates' detailed comments (today's post contains updates and supersedes the old information)
We have received NEW candidate surveys in the past few days, which are listed here. Pro-life candidates' names are listed in bold.
This is a simplified list of all candidates who Colorado Right to Life considers "pro-life". To be on this list, a candidate must meet the following qualifications:
1) They must support Personhood - Amendment 62 - and be on record supporting an actual Right to Life which should be guaranteed under the law.
2) They must officially support NO ABORTIONS for any reason (other than to save the "life of the mother" which is a matter we've discussed before -- we support doing whatever is necessary to save the life of the mother, which NEVER requires trying to kill an unborn child in the womb -- candidates who support "life of the mother exceptions" are misunderstanding this, but we just need to talk through it with them).
This list includes only valid pro-life candidates for Governor, US Senate/Congress, State House and State Senate, and occasionally candidates who are NOT pro-life whose position we want to make clear (their names will not be bolded). We're sorry if the non-inclusion of a favorite candidate offends you. Candidates who are NOT on this list are either missing because they have made statements which violate either of our two criteria or because they have not responded to the CRTL Candidate Survey -- call them, e-mail them, ask them to answer, and they will be included.
Colorado Governor
Dan Maes (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
Scott McInnis (R) supports Personhood (his claims of having a pro-life record in Congress are NOT true), and says he is pro-life with no exceptions (we'll hold him to that).
Tom Tancredo (Constitution) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
U.S. Senate
Ken Buck (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
Jane Norton (R) says she supports Personhood, but her website supports abortions for rape or incest which violate the concept of Personhood -- she is NOT 100% pro-life.
Congressional District 1
Steve Barton (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
(Mark Fallon, his Republican opponent, is not overtly pro-life: Denver Post: "Fallon, a practicing Catholic with traditional religious beliefs, says he would remain neutral on social issues like a woman's right to an abortion and gay rights")
Congressional District 2
No candidates are 100% pro-life -- Bob Brancato opposes most abortions, Stephen Bailey supports all abortions.
Congressional District 3
Bob McConnell (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
Scott Tipton (R) won't go on record, and claims to be pro-life but is NOT considered truly pro-life.
John Hargis (write-in) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
Congressional District 4
Cory Gardner (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
Congressional District 5
Doug Lamborn (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
Congressional District 6
Mike Coffman (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
Congressional District 7
No candidates are confirmed 100% pro-life. Lang Sias hasn't responded to repeated attempts to get a response to our surveys, though he says he's pro-life. Ryan Frazier falsely claims to be pro-life while he's told newspapers he doesn't think the government should interfere.
State Senate District 1
Greg Brophy (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
State Senate District 2
Kevin Grantham (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
(his Republican opponent is pro-abortion)
State Senate District 3
Vera Ortegon (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
Alexander Mugatu (R) supports Personhood, but also supports some abortion exceptions so he cannot be considered fully pro-life.
State Senate District 5
No pro-life candidates (pro-life Wayne Wolf doesn't appear to be on the ballot any longer)
State Senate District 6
Dean Boehler (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
(his Republican opponent supports abortion)
State Senate District 7
Steve King (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
(King did support "emergency contraception" in a previous legislative session -- we take this as his promise he will not do so again)
State Senate District 9
Kent Lambert (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
State Senate District 11
Owen Hill (R) hasn't responded to our survey but we believe he is 100% pro-life.
State Senate District 13
Scott Renfroe (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions (in fact he's the only Colorado legislator to have carried the equivalent of Personhood legislation).
State Senate District 15
Kevin Lundberg (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
State Senate District 16
Tim Leonard (R) is unclear in his support of Personhood, and though he has been 100% pro-life in the past he hasn't responded to our survey.
State Senate District 20
No pro-life candidates that we're aware of.
State Senate District 22
Mike Kopp (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
State Senate District 24
No pro-life candidates that we're aware of.
State Senate District 30
Ted Harvey (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
State Senate District 31
Doug Smith (R) is a new candidate we've not had time to contact. We have no reason to believe he's pro-life except that he appears to have supported pro-life candidates in the past. If you know Doug and can get him in touch with us, please do so.
Clifton Powell (Constitution) is another candidate we've not been able to contact. His party is considered 100% pro-life. If you know him please have him contact us.
State Senate District 32
Tyler Kolden (R) is a new candidate we've not been able to reach. No reason to believe either way so far.
State Senate District 33
Lisa Ringle (R) is a new candidate we've not been able to reach. No reason to believe either way so far.
State Senate District 34
No pro-life candidates.
NOTE ABOUT CANDIDATES: Senate Districts 31-34 and House Districts 1-9 are City of Denver districts, and even pro-life candidates from these districts often don't want to be on record. We would prefer if they would be public about their beliefs, but it is typical candidate behavior to avoid controversy. The same goes for Boulder Districts (Senate 16 and House 10-14).
State House District 1
No pro-life candidates we're aware of.
State House District 2
No pro-life candidates we're aware of.
State House District 3
No pro-life candidates we're aware of.
State House District 4
No pro-life candidates we're aware of.
State House District 5
No pro-life candidates we're aware of.
State House District 6
No pro-life candidates we're aware of.
State House District 7
No pro-life candidates we're aware of.
State House District 8
No pro-life candidates we're aware of.
State House District 9
C.J. Garbo (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
(his Republican opponent does not appear to be pro-life)
State House District 10
We believe some of the Boulder Republicans are pro-life - please contact them.
State House District 11
We believe some of the Boulder Republicans are pro-life - please contact them.
State House District 12
We believe some of the Boulder Republicans are pro-life - please contact them.
State House District 13
We believe some of the Boulder Republicans are pro-life - please contact them.
State House District 14
Janak Joshi (R) says he is pro-life but we've not received his survey.
State House District 15
Mark Waller (R) says he is pro-life and is willing to talk with CRTL - haven't had an opportunity to talk with him yet.
State House District 16
Candidates would not return surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 17
Mark Barker (R) supports Personhood, pro-life without exceptions.
State House District 18
Candidates would not return surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 19
Marsha Looper (R) may support Personhood, and considers herself pro-life. Have not received survey responses to evaluate her positions. Please ask her to contact us.
State House District 20
Amy Stephens (R) may support Personhood, and considers herself pro-life. Have not received survey responses to evaluate her positions. Please ask her to contact us.
State House District 21
No reason to believe candidates are pro-life (Bob Gardner supported "emergency contraception" -- abortifacients -- in the legislature)
State House District 22
Candidates would not return surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 23
Candidates would not return surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 24
Candidates would not return surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 25
Candidates would not return surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 26
Candidates would not return surveys. No reason to believe they're pro-life.
State House District 27
Libby Szabo (R) has not returned surveys, but we believe she is 100% pro-life.
State House District 28
Jim Kerr (R) has not returned his survey, but he did sign the Personhood petition, and may be fully pro-life. Please have him contact us.
State House District 29
Candidates have not returned surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 30
Candidates have not returned surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 31
Tom Janich (R) is responding to the survey now -- we'll update this when we see his responses.
State House District 32
Kaarl Hoopes (R) supports Personhood, and is pro-life with no exceptions.
State House District 33
If you know Don Beezley (R) please have him respond to the survey. We hear he's pro-life but need confirmation.
State House District 34
Brian Vande Krol (R) supports Personhood, which we assume means he has no exceptions. We'd like to confirm this. If you know him please have him contact us. We haven't received his survey.
State House District 35
Edgar Antillon (R) says he's pro-life but we never recieved his survey. We cannot confirm.
State House District 36
No pro-life candidates.
State House District 37
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life. Spencer Swalm supported "emergency contraception" (abortifacients) in the legislature.
State House District 38
Kathleen Conti (R) supports Personhood, and is pro-life without exception.
State House District 39
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they're pro-life.
State House District 40
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 41
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they're pro-life.
State House District 42
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they're pro-life.
State House District 43
Frank McNulty (R) supports Personhood, and is pro-life with no exceptions.
State House District 44
Chris Holbert (R) supports Personhood, and is pro-life with no exceptions.
David Casiano (R) recently responded that he supports Personhood, and is pro-life without exceptions.
Polly Lawrence (R) responded to our survey, indicating she is "personally pro-life" (which means she's professionally pro-abortion) -- she refused to support Personhood.
State House District 45
Candidates did not respond to our survey. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 46
Steven Rodriguez (R) supports Personhood, and is pro-life with no exceptions.
State House District 47
Candidates have not responded to our survey. No reason to believe they're strongly pro-life.
State House District 48
Glenn Vaad (R) signed the Personhood petition this year, which implies that he is pro-life without exception. We have not received a survey response from him though, to confirm this. He did support "emergency contraception" in the legislature, and if he would respond to our survey we could confirm his promise not to do so again.
State House District 49
B.J. Nikkel (R) supports Personhood, and we have reason to believe she is pro-life with no exceptions. We've not received her survey, so we cannot confirm this for certain.
State House District 50
Candidates have not responded to our survey. We have no reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 51
Candidates have not responded to our survey. We have no reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 52
Candidates have not responded to our survey. We have no reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 53
Candidates have not responded to our survey. We have no reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 54
Ray Scott (R) supports Personhood, and is 100% pro-life with no exceptions.
(Ray's Republican opponent is pro-abortion)
State House District 55
Candidates have not responded to our survey. No reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 56
Candidates have not responded to our survey. No reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 57
Randy Baumgardner (R) supports Personhood, pro-life with no exceptions.
State House District 58
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 59
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 60
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they are pro-life. Tom Massey supported "emergency contraception" (abortifacients) in the legislature.
State House District 61
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 62
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 63
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 64
Candidates have not responded to surveys. No reason to believe they are pro-life.
State House District 65
Jerry Sonnenberg (R) supports Personhood, and he is pro-life with no exceptions.
Showing posts with label exceptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exceptions. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Personhood Works, Regulations Don't
(reposted from Look on the Right Side - the author has said that anyone may re-post this with attribution, so please do in order to spread this important truth)
This is a more coherent recap & expansion on my earlier blog post on regulations, and why they undermine the Personhood of the unborn child -- "How We Compromise Ourselves."
I do not question the well-meaning intentions of those legislators who support, or even write, compromise legislation which tries to put limits on abortion in circumstances where a total abortion ban is not realistically possible. We can argue later about which is more "politically realistic" (I think Personhood is, still). But the fact that I believe in the good intentions of the pro-life regulators does not mean that I don't care whether they stop pushing regulations -- I do! -- or that I approve of what they're doing -- I don't! -- or that I will always continue to support regulation-minded legislators if they continue to ignore warnings about the unintended consequences of what they do.
I think the main thing “pro-life regulators” need to understand is that, whether or not Personhood is "practical" in a legal sense (which is the main objection of those pro-lifers who oppose the Personhood strategy, including Archbishop Charles Chaput and Clarke Forsythe of AUL), our primary problem as pro-lifers is that we've been making the wrong argument -- one which won't "change peoples' hearts" (which everybody agrees is the goal, and yet incrementalists are convinced they DO have the right argument).
The regulations may teach some people about the Right to Life, but more often (esp. for wishy-washy or "moderate" citizens, who are the ones we need to convince in order to succeed in passing legislation or electing legislators) regulations only suggest a "moderate" solution exists for what they are led to believe is a policy question -- where do you draw the line?
Let me restate that.
Regulations clearly “suggest” to a citizen observer that there’s a policy question, to which there are “extreme” solutions (to right or left) and “moderate” solutions. Typical American citizens being who they are, almost all of the people in this category (i.e. the moderate, middle-of-the-road people who don’t often think about policy issues, but when they do they try to find a middle ground, striving never to seem “extreme”) will seek the middle ground – the moderate way – and won’t see the larger implications of the issue at hand.
The argument pro-lifers need to make -- and Personhood makes this argument 100% of the time, while regulations may succeed in making it only 30% of the time -- is that there is an actual Right to Life which is inalienable as a principle, and may not be violated for any reason. That message comes through with Personhood, and it's making progress.
I’ll restate that too.
Personhood “suggests” to a citizen observer that abortion is most certainly NOT a policy question with a spectrum of possible solutions, but is rather a question of principles. Two principles, as it happens – either pro-life or pro-abortion. When the abortion “question” is posed as a principle, and not as a policy question, Americans are actually more likely to choose life instead of death.
Polls show something like 80-90% of Americans believe “there is a God,” even if most of them may not call themselves Christian or correctly follow the teachings of the true God. Believing in God suggests an absolute moral standard, and when the abortion question is measured against an absolute moral standard, very few Americans want to be caught on the wrong, or immoral, side. Since they’re forced to choose between a principle of “abortion is right and moral” versus “abortion is always wrong” one option stands out as more correct and more moral than the other.
That’s the “practical” reason why pro-lifers must reject regulations and embrace the Personhood strategy. The Personhood strategy accomplishes what we want to accomplish – a changing of hearts and minds in society – whereas regulations are far less effective in accomplishing the change we want.
Our message always gets muddled when we're talking about regulations, because every regulation inherently denies there is a Right to Life (if there were an inalienable, inviolable Right to Life, then there's nothing to regulate!).
Consider this line from the text of Roe v. Wade: "Endnote 54: When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"
The US Supreme Court in 1972/73 didn't simply lay a roadmap for pro-lifers by noting that if you establish Personhood in law, you can protect the unborn as Persons. They also highlighted the logical error in the "pro-life with exceptions" mentality.
The key point is this: The Supreme Court logically concluded that because Texas had an exception to their anti-abortion statute*, Texas could not simultaneously argue that an unborn child was a Person under their law, because the two concepts – a regulation vs. a principle – are contradictory. The regulation always denies the principle, so if there exists a regulation, then the principle must not be the law of the land. It’s simple logic.
Ed Hanks
* A note on "life of the mother exceptions": Many pro-lifers get stuck on the “life of the mother” exception, because it’s the most compelling of the “hard cases” exceptions some regulations are meant to address (how many times have we heard politicians recite the line, "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother"?). But we need not fall victim even to the life of the mother objection. The Personhood movement cares deeply about the lives of both, mother and child, especially since if the mother dies before the baby comes to term, the child will obviously die too. However, that doesn’t mean we need a “life of the mother exception” in law. Instead, the anti-abortion statute should be absolute. The life of the mother is saved by a doctor trying to save both lives (and thereby “do no harm”), not by a doctor trying to kill one patient in order to save the other. It’s the same concept as separating cojoined twins. The goal should always be to preserve both lives. This is not always possible, because of relative viability, and so sometimes one of the patients dies. The measure of crime or not is intent. If ever the doctor attempts to kill one patient, rather than save him/her, that’s where it becomes homicide.
This is a more coherent recap & expansion on my earlier blog post on regulations, and why they undermine the Personhood of the unborn child -- "How We Compromise Ourselves."
I do not question the well-meaning intentions of those legislators who support, or even write, compromise legislation which tries to put limits on abortion in circumstances where a total abortion ban is not realistically possible. We can argue later about which is more "politically realistic" (I think Personhood is, still). But the fact that I believe in the good intentions of the pro-life regulators does not mean that I don't care whether they stop pushing regulations -- I do! -- or that I approve of what they're doing -- I don't! -- or that I will always continue to support regulation-minded legislators if they continue to ignore warnings about the unintended consequences of what they do.
I think the main thing “pro-life regulators” need to understand is that, whether or not Personhood is "practical" in a legal sense (which is the main objection of those pro-lifers who oppose the Personhood strategy, including Archbishop Charles Chaput and Clarke Forsythe of AUL), our primary problem as pro-lifers is that we've been making the wrong argument -- one which won't "change peoples' hearts" (which everybody agrees is the goal, and yet incrementalists are convinced they DO have the right argument).
The regulations may teach some people about the Right to Life, but more often (esp. for wishy-washy or "moderate" citizens, who are the ones we need to convince in order to succeed in passing legislation or electing legislators) regulations only suggest a "moderate" solution exists for what they are led to believe is a policy question -- where do you draw the line?
Let me restate that.
Regulations clearly “suggest” to a citizen observer that there’s a policy question, to which there are “extreme” solutions (to right or left) and “moderate” solutions. Typical American citizens being who they are, almost all of the people in this category (i.e. the moderate, middle-of-the-road people who don’t often think about policy issues, but when they do they try to find a middle ground, striving never to seem “extreme”) will seek the middle ground – the moderate way – and won’t see the larger implications of the issue at hand.
The argument pro-lifers need to make -- and Personhood makes this argument 100% of the time, while regulations may succeed in making it only 30% of the time -- is that there is an actual Right to Life which is inalienable as a principle, and may not be violated for any reason. That message comes through with Personhood, and it's making progress.
I’ll restate that too.
Personhood “suggests” to a citizen observer that abortion is most certainly NOT a policy question with a spectrum of possible solutions, but is rather a question of principles. Two principles, as it happens – either pro-life or pro-abortion. When the abortion “question” is posed as a principle, and not as a policy question, Americans are actually more likely to choose life instead of death.
Polls show something like 80-90% of Americans believe “there is a God,” even if most of them may not call themselves Christian or correctly follow the teachings of the true God. Believing in God suggests an absolute moral standard, and when the abortion question is measured against an absolute moral standard, very few Americans want to be caught on the wrong, or immoral, side. Since they’re forced to choose between a principle of “abortion is right and moral” versus “abortion is always wrong” one option stands out as more correct and more moral than the other.
That’s the “practical” reason why pro-lifers must reject regulations and embrace the Personhood strategy. The Personhood strategy accomplishes what we want to accomplish – a changing of hearts and minds in society – whereas regulations are far less effective in accomplishing the change we want.
Our message always gets muddled when we're talking about regulations, because every regulation inherently denies there is a Right to Life (if there were an inalienable, inviolable Right to Life, then there's nothing to regulate!).
Consider this line from the text of Roe v. Wade: "Endnote 54: When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"
The US Supreme Court in 1972/73 didn't simply lay a roadmap for pro-lifers by noting that if you establish Personhood in law, you can protect the unborn as Persons. They also highlighted the logical error in the "pro-life with exceptions" mentality.
The key point is this: The Supreme Court logically concluded that because Texas had an exception to their anti-abortion statute*, Texas could not simultaneously argue that an unborn child was a Person under their law, because the two concepts – a regulation vs. a principle – are contradictory. The regulation always denies the principle, so if there exists a regulation, then the principle must not be the law of the land. It’s simple logic.
Ed Hanks
* A note on "life of the mother exceptions": Many pro-lifers get stuck on the “life of the mother” exception, because it’s the most compelling of the “hard cases” exceptions some regulations are meant to address (how many times have we heard politicians recite the line, "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother"?). But we need not fall victim even to the life of the mother objection. The Personhood movement cares deeply about the lives of both, mother and child, especially since if the mother dies before the baby comes to term, the child will obviously die too. However, that doesn’t mean we need a “life of the mother exception” in law. Instead, the anti-abortion statute should be absolute. The life of the mother is saved by a doctor trying to save both lives (and thereby “do no harm”), not by a doctor trying to kill one patient in order to save the other. It’s the same concept as separating cojoined twins. The goal should always be to preserve both lives. This is not always possible, because of relative viability, and so sometimes one of the patients dies. The measure of crime or not is intent. If ever the doctor attempts to kill one patient, rather than save him/her, that’s where it becomes homicide.
Friday, January 23, 2009
CRTL Debates on CSPAN!
CRTL Board Member and Pastor Bob Enyart spoke in favor of Colorado’s Personhood Amendement on CSPAN in October. He debated Crystal Clinkenbeard, leader of the "No on 48" campaign, in a 37-minute exchange broadcast nationwide.
Taking the initiative, Enyart spoke for most of the 45-minute program, with Clinkenbeard seemingly having few sound bites that would help her side. Enyart’s points were cogent, and hard-hitting. "Half the time the pregnant woman has a boy inside of her," he said, "so it’s not the woman’s body. It’s a separate body."
Clinkenbeard posed several lies and obfuscations, and raised extreme cases which would never come into play.
One of the charges Planned Parenthood made was that giving rights to "fertilized eggs" would send women to jail for miscarriages. Enyart responded, "The claim that women and doctors are going to be going to jail because of medical treatment, that is shown to be obfuscation, because before Roe v. Wade we had ectopic pregnancies in America – a baby developing in the fallopian tube. We did not have our courts filled with doctors and women going to court and to jail because of having to save the life of a mother in an ectopic pregnancy."
Clinkenbeard explained how concerned she and the pro-abortion forces are that what started in Colorado will spread to other states.
Host Pedro Echevarria asked, "If this amendment passes, could that ultimately go up the line to what it could do for Roe versus Wade?"
She answered, "Absolutely."
A pro-life caller said she was offended that her tax dollars were being used to support abortion. Clinkenbeard responded, "It’s absolutely not true, it doesn’t happen." And went on to say that under the Hyde Amendment, such taxpayer funding is illegal, so... of course it doesn’t happen!
Enyart wouldn’t let that drop, so he explained about the fungibility (transferability) of funds, and how adding funding for any reason to Planned Parenthood naturally supports their abortion services. "Regarding tax funded abortions, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars, of federal tax money."
One caller challenged Enyart’s right to even speak on the issue, since he was a man. In his response, Enyart pointed out that Roe v. Wade and all the pro-abortion laws in the ‘60s and ‘70s were decided not by women, but by men. "Men are more pro-choice than women… they’ll use a woman sexually, impregnate her, and not want to have to love her or care for her or their child, and so men are more pro-choice than women, and that’s historic, because a woman carries the baby and knows it is a child."
During the program, Enyart compared abortion to slavery. "Back when we were trying to stop slavery — abolition — people said, ‘Well I’m against slavery, but think of all the difficulty this would cause for our economy, for our political system, if we acknowledge blacks as people, think of all the difficulties to our societal structure. Those arguments are irrelevant. What matters is that a child should be honored by the adults in society, should be loved and protected." Then he pointed to Snowflakes.org, which helps adopt out frozen embryos. Their site also shows pictures of beautiful babies who were adopted as frozen embryos and who are being raised as loved children today.
"Their rights started not in the hospital," he said, "Their rights started when they were created, at that moment of fertilization. And if we deny that, that fundamental truth of when life begins… they avoid the question of when does life begin. They can’t answer that question. All of science acknowledges that the human being comes into existence when the sperm fertilizes the egg."
Amendment 48, of course — the subject of the debate — would protect children from the moment of fertilization. "Our opponents say, ‘well, we don’t know when the moment of fertilization is.’ But that egg knows, because as soon as one sperm fertilizes that egg, a dramatic change happens in the cell wall, and all the other suitors, they’re rebuffed. It’s too late. There’s now a new precious little boy, or a little girl, right there. And we need to love and protect all children beginning right at that first moment of life."
Responding to Clinkenbeard’s charge that Personhood would even force a raped child to give birth, Enyart said, "Abortion for incest is cruel. What it does is it encourages the would-be criminal to rape his young relative, and he knows that if he impregnates her, he can bring her to Planned Parenthood, and nationwide, systematically, Planned Parenthood, Crystal’s former employer, does not they refuse to comply with mandatory reporting for suspected sexual abuse of minors. Just as in California, in August, a case noted by the California Supreme Court, a man will commit incest, impregnate his young relative, bring her to an abortion clinic, they will ask no questions, he’ll take her home and continue to abuse her. So the abortion clinic often sends the victim home with her rapist to be continually sexually molested."
Clinkenbeard brought up ectopic pregnancy and health issues, claiming 48 would prevent action, to which Enyart responded, "You don’t kill the mother to save the baby, and you don’t kill the baby to save the mother. You try to love and protect both. And when the baby dies, as is commonly the case, that’s a tragedy, but you don’t stop half-way, like in a partial-birth abortion, stop and kill the baby. If the mother’s life is at risk, you deliver the baby. You do a C-section. You remove the baby. You don’t deliver him half-way breach, stop, kill the baby, and then continue. That is not loving and protecting the mother. That’s the intention to kill the baby. And that’s what’s wrong. That’s why we have to love and protect all children."
Finally, refuting Clinkenbeard’s claim that Planned Parenthood is concerned for the well being of women, Enyart said, "Abortion is not only cruel to children, it’s cruel to the moms. And we owe it to the next generation of young women in the state of Colorado and our country to protect them from the cruelty of convenience and pressure to kill their little baby, their boy or girl, and so this amendment is a historic opportunity for the State of Colorado to acknowledge the God-given Right to Life comes, like the last caller said, at that moment of creation. Our rights don’t come from the hospital, they don’t come from the delivery doctor, the OBYGN. Our rights come from our Creator. And Planned Parenthood and Crystal, they cannot say when life begins, even though it is so obvious in any biology textbook, fetology, that life begins at that moment. All you have to do is refrain from killing it to find out what a beautiful and precious little boy or girl is right there in that embryo."
The full program is available online:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/crystal-clinkenbeard-and-bob-enyart/1305153968/
Taking the initiative, Enyart spoke for most of the 45-minute program, with Clinkenbeard seemingly having few sound bites that would help her side. Enyart’s points were cogent, and hard-hitting. "Half the time the pregnant woman has a boy inside of her," he said, "so it’s not the woman’s body. It’s a separate body."
Clinkenbeard posed several lies and obfuscations, and raised extreme cases which would never come into play.
One of the charges Planned Parenthood made was that giving rights to "fertilized eggs" would send women to jail for miscarriages. Enyart responded, "The claim that women and doctors are going to be going to jail because of medical treatment, that is shown to be obfuscation, because before Roe v. Wade we had ectopic pregnancies in America – a baby developing in the fallopian tube. We did not have our courts filled with doctors and women going to court and to jail because of having to save the life of a mother in an ectopic pregnancy."
Clinkenbeard explained how concerned she and the pro-abortion forces are that what started in Colorado will spread to other states.
Host Pedro Echevarria asked, "If this amendment passes, could that ultimately go up the line to what it could do for Roe versus Wade?"
She answered, "Absolutely."
A pro-life caller said she was offended that her tax dollars were being used to support abortion. Clinkenbeard responded, "It’s absolutely not true, it doesn’t happen." And went on to say that under the Hyde Amendment, such taxpayer funding is illegal, so... of course it doesn’t happen!
Enyart wouldn’t let that drop, so he explained about the fungibility (transferability) of funds, and how adding funding for any reason to Planned Parenthood naturally supports their abortion services. "Regarding tax funded abortions, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars, of federal tax money."
One caller challenged Enyart’s right to even speak on the issue, since he was a man. In his response, Enyart pointed out that Roe v. Wade and all the pro-abortion laws in the ‘60s and ‘70s were decided not by women, but by men. "Men are more pro-choice than women… they’ll use a woman sexually, impregnate her, and not want to have to love her or care for her or their child, and so men are more pro-choice than women, and that’s historic, because a woman carries the baby and knows it is a child."
During the program, Enyart compared abortion to slavery. "Back when we were trying to stop slavery — abolition — people said, ‘Well I’m against slavery, but think of all the difficulty this would cause for our economy, for our political system, if we acknowledge blacks as people, think of all the difficulties to our societal structure. Those arguments are irrelevant. What matters is that a child should be honored by the adults in society, should be loved and protected." Then he pointed to Snowflakes.org, which helps adopt out frozen embryos. Their site also shows pictures of beautiful babies who were adopted as frozen embryos and who are being raised as loved children today.
"Their rights started not in the hospital," he said, "Their rights started when they were created, at that moment of fertilization. And if we deny that, that fundamental truth of when life begins… they avoid the question of when does life begin. They can’t answer that question. All of science acknowledges that the human being comes into existence when the sperm fertilizes the egg."
Amendment 48, of course — the subject of the debate — would protect children from the moment of fertilization. "Our opponents say, ‘well, we don’t know when the moment of fertilization is.’ But that egg knows, because as soon as one sperm fertilizes that egg, a dramatic change happens in the cell wall, and all the other suitors, they’re rebuffed. It’s too late. There’s now a new precious little boy, or a little girl, right there. And we need to love and protect all children beginning right at that first moment of life."
Responding to Clinkenbeard’s charge that Personhood would even force a raped child to give birth, Enyart said, "Abortion for incest is cruel. What it does is it encourages the would-be criminal to rape his young relative, and he knows that if he impregnates her, he can bring her to Planned Parenthood, and nationwide, systematically, Planned Parenthood, Crystal’s former employer, does not they refuse to comply with mandatory reporting for suspected sexual abuse of minors. Just as in California, in August, a case noted by the California Supreme Court, a man will commit incest, impregnate his young relative, bring her to an abortion clinic, they will ask no questions, he’ll take her home and continue to abuse her. So the abortion clinic often sends the victim home with her rapist to be continually sexually molested."
Clinkenbeard brought up ectopic pregnancy and health issues, claiming 48 would prevent action, to which Enyart responded, "You don’t kill the mother to save the baby, and you don’t kill the baby to save the mother. You try to love and protect both. And when the baby dies, as is commonly the case, that’s a tragedy, but you don’t stop half-way, like in a partial-birth abortion, stop and kill the baby. If the mother’s life is at risk, you deliver the baby. You do a C-section. You remove the baby. You don’t deliver him half-way breach, stop, kill the baby, and then continue. That is not loving and protecting the mother. That’s the intention to kill the baby. And that’s what’s wrong. That’s why we have to love and protect all children."
Finally, refuting Clinkenbeard’s claim that Planned Parenthood is concerned for the well being of women, Enyart said, "Abortion is not only cruel to children, it’s cruel to the moms. And we owe it to the next generation of young women in the state of Colorado and our country to protect them from the cruelty of convenience and pressure to kill their little baby, their boy or girl, and so this amendment is a historic opportunity for the State of Colorado to acknowledge the God-given Right to Life comes, like the last caller said, at that moment of creation. Our rights don’t come from the hospital, they don’t come from the delivery doctor, the OBYGN. Our rights come from our Creator. And Planned Parenthood and Crystal, they cannot say when life begins, even though it is so obvious in any biology textbook, fetology, that life begins at that moment. All you have to do is refrain from killing it to find out what a beautiful and precious little boy or girl is right there in that embryo."
The full program is available online:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/crystal-clinkenbeard-and-bob-enyart/1305153968/
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Mike Coffman (candidate for congress) Clarification
Last week, while appearing on the Caplis & Silverman radio show (630 KHOW, Denver), Congressional candidate Mike Coffman was heard to say that he did not oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest. This sent CRTL and many other pro-lifers into a tizzy, because it went against what Mike had pledged in his Candidate Survey, as well as what we all thought we knew about Mike's beliefs.
When contacted about this, Mike immediately expressed surprise that he'd said any such thing. He thinks he may have gotten confused and said the opposite of what he meant. While with many candidates, we might suspect evasion, this didn't seem to be the case with Mike. He has written to attempt to clarify with Dan Caplis, so no one will misunderstand. Here is his note (copied to CRTL):
It takes a big man to admit such a mistake. And Mike Coffman's strong relationship with the pro-life community over many years is obviously important enough to him that he wanted to make this correction/clarification despite the fact that he surely has Colorado's 6th District race locked up and will almost certainly be one of Colorado's newly elected Congressmen in 2009.
This is great news for unborn children!
When contacted about this, Mike immediately expressed surprise that he'd said any such thing. He thinks he may have gotten confused and said the opposite of what he meant. While with many candidates, we might suspect evasion, this didn't seem to be the case with Mike. He has written to attempt to clarify with Dan Caplis, so no one will misunderstand. Here is his note (copied to CRTL):
Dan,
First of all, thanks so much for your help with my campaign and for inviting me on your show. During the debate, Craig Silverman was questioning me on the issue of abortion. My response was focused on arguing that Roe v Wade was bad law. During that exchange, Craig asked me about the issue of rape and incest. Apparently, my answer came across as supporting abortions under a rape and incest exception. I absolutely do not believe in that.
Dan, I would deeply appreciate it if, during your show, you could state that I wanted to make sure that my position was clear, unequivocally, that I oppose abortion in all cases of rape and incest. I believe that all life is equally sacred irregardless of how it came into being.
Thanks again,
Mike Coffman
It takes a big man to admit such a mistake. And Mike Coffman's strong relationship with the pro-life community over many years is obviously important enough to him that he wanted to make this correction/clarification despite the fact that he surely has Colorado's 6th District race locked up and will almost certainly be one of Colorado's newly elected Congressmen in 2009.
This is great news for unborn children!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
