Schaffer in Trouble

Colorado Senatorial candidate Bob Schaffer is in trouble, reports The Denver Post based on a Rasmussen poll. "Democratic Congressman Mark Udall has opened up a 9-point lead" in the race. The story notes, "Udall maintains a large lead among women, while he extended his lead among unaffiliated voters to 21 points..."

The paper discusses attack adds on Jack Abramoff and "Big Oil Bob," but there's something else going on: Schaffer's strong anti-abortion views have also been in the news (though he's been running from the "personhood" amendment to define a fertilized egg as a person). That helps explain the difference among women and independents.

With gas around $4 a gallon, I think a lot of Coloradans wouldn't mind somebody in Congress who knows a think or two about oil and who isn't dedicated to undermining the country's ability to produce energy.

But in this race between a socialist and a theocrat, the socialist is winning. It's a scary thing when Udall's creeping socialism is the least-scary option.

Sixth Congressional

It's a different race in Colorado's Sixth Congressional, where Tom Tancredo has reigned. I don't think there's any way a Republican can lose there.

In the primary, the leading candidates have sprinted to the religious right. According to a poll released by Mike Coffman, the leading candidates are Coffman, Wil Armstrong, Ted Harvey, and Steve Ward.

Coffman signed the questionnaire from Colorado Right to Life, agreeing that God opposes abortion, "abortion is always wrong" even if the father is a rapist, a fertilized egg is a person, and embryonic stem-cell research should be banned.

It's stunning that Colorado is likely to have somebody like Udall as Senator and Coffman as a Congressman.

Harvey also signed the questionnaire, adding for the "personhood" question, "I organized a petition drive at my church."

Wil Armstrong writes on his web page, "I am pro-life, and I will battle against any ill-conceived and family unfriendly legislation."

Ward has not replied to my e-mail asking him his position on abortion.

Socialists to the left of me, theocrats to the right. Here I am.

Republicans Botch Abortion

As I've pointed out, Colorado's Amendment 48, the "personhood" initiative that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, has placed the Republicans in a quandary. After years of paying lip-service to the religious right, they are now pressured to support 48. The problem for Republicans is that most Coloradans realize that Amendment 48 is insane. A fertilized egg is not a person, yet the initiative seeks to impose the definition through enforced religious dogma.

So now the GOP has become a headless chicken, squawking in and out of the anti-abortion camp.

As Lynn Bartels reports for The Rocky Mountain News, when Republican party chair Dick Wadhams refused to rent a table to Colorado Right to Life at the party's state convention, the group blasted the GOP.

Why did Wadhams deny the table? He told Bartels, "Any organization that publicly attacks the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate is not going to be allowed to buy table space."

What are these attacks? The organization refers on its web page to "Colorado RTL's accusation of his disregard for Chinese women forced to abort their children." Regarding the group's 2008 Candidate Questionnaire, which includes a question about the "personhood" initiative, its web page states, "Notable for NOT answering the Colorado RTL Candidate Questionnaire is U.S. Republican candidate Bob Schaffer." Tim Hoover of The Denver Post adds, "Earlier this year, Colorado Right to Life attacked Schaffer over his defense of human rights conditions in the Northern Marianas Islands, where there have been repeated accusations that textile workers must undergo forced abortions."

Wadhams, also Schaffer's campaign manager, has been reduced to mocking Colorado Right to Life and weakly touting his anti-abortion credentials. He told the Post, "The Colorado Republican Party has good relations with legitimate pro-life organization."

Colorado Right to Life is threatening to walk this November if candidates don't behave. Bartels writes, "Colorado Right to Life President Joe Riccobono warned Republicans that by shunning their conservative base, they're headed for 'another election catastrophe in November'." Hoover adds, "'The state's top Republican is out of touch with his own party's base,' Leslie Hanks , the group's vice president, said in a statement." (I couldn't find that statement on the group's web page.)

Yet if Republicans pander to Colorado Right to Life, they'll lose the more numerous independent voters.

Notably, various Republicans have already signed on to Colorado Right to Life's agenda. I don't notice a lot of Republican names from competitive districts.

Gone are the days when Republicans can mouth anti-abortion rhetoric and expect not to actually have to face the issue. Colorado Right to Life means it, and they're prepared to push their faith-based politics all the way.

See today's post at AriArmtrong.com for more about Colorado Right to Life's Agenda.

'Personhood' Now Amendment 48

The measure to define a fertilized egg as a person has become Amendment 48 for Colorado's 2008 ballot (as I mentioned at my other blog). As I've argued, the measure gives Democrats an advantage this November. As Electa Draper reports for The Denver Post, the Democrats agree.

[I]n this political cycle, even candidates who oppose abortion are not interested in identifying with highly controversial social issues, said Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli. ... Conversely, Ciruli said, if a conservative candidate doesn't endorse it, he or she could alienate the base.

In the U.S. Senate race, Bob Schaffer's campaign spokesman, Dick Wadhams, who also leads the Colorado Republican Party, did not return calls for comment.

Democrat Mark Udall's campaign spokeswoman, Taylor West, said, "Mark's been very clear that he does not support this. Schaffer has been refusing to take a position. He's trying to hide how far out he is on this issue." ...

Musgrave spokesman Joe Bretell would not comment other than to say Musgrave signed the petition to place the measure on the ballot.

Musgrave's Democratic rival in the 4th Congressional District, Betsy Markey, opposes the amendment.

"It's an extreme measure," Markey spokeswoman Anne Caprara said. "It's an extreme right-wing tactic. This will shine a light on Marilyn Musgrave."

I doubt that Musgrave, an incumbent in a conservative district, is vulnerable, but Schaffer definitely is. Amendment 48 gives women a strong incentive to show up at the polls -- and vote for Udall while they're at it.

It is indeed telling that Musgrave signed the measure. If Markey is smart, she'll praise gun owners, oppose tax hikes, and spend every campaign cent she has mailing women and independents in the district linking Musgrave to Amendment 48. I don't know anything about Markey, but if she's even reasonably competent and centrist this issue gives her a chance to win.

I'll be interested to see how Schaffer tries to evade the issue. Good luck on that.

Maybe Colorado Republicans will eventually figure out that most Westerners don't want to live in a theocracy.

'Personhood' Amendment Favors Dems

Colorado's Democrats must be smiling. The so-called "personhood" amendment -- which absurdly defines a fertilized egg as a person -- seems headed for the ballot, as Electa Draper reports for The Denver Post.

Yes, the measure will bring out evangelicals and right-wing Catholics to the polls. But it will also motivate the left and women's groups to vote against it. And it will convince most centrist and unaffiliated voters that Republicans are right-wing kooks, once Republicans start associating themselves with the measure.

How can Republicans avoid it? Bob Schaffer has claimed that abortion is "always wrong." He's already been pressured by the right for not being hard-core enough against abortion. He cannot persuasively dodge the issue as a state matter (when he's running for U.S. Senate), because, as WorldNetDaily puts it, the measure may be the "silver bullet to kill Roe v. Wade." It is a federal as well as a state issue.

Republicans have given themselves a choice of platforms for this Fall: hypocrites or women-killers. For one of the results of the measure, should it be passed and legally enforced, would be to endanger the lives of women. Kristi Burton, leader of the drive, said the measure would force us to "balance the interests" of a fertilized egg with those of the mother, Draper reports. What that means, in practice, is that some women will die, because doctors could be prosecuted for performing abortions in boarderline cases.

The brilliance of Colorado Republicans continually amazes me.

In a way, it's nice that the evangelicals have placed their cards on the table, bypassing the careful game of incrementalism. The logical conclusion of the religious right's stance on abortion is that a fertilized egg is a person (because infused by God with a soul) and must be legally protected. And that is the debate that we will have for the next six months (assuming there's nothing squirrelly with the signatures).

Thankfully, the measure is doomed (assuming a vigorous opposition campaign). No reasonable person regards a fertilized egg as a person, with all the rights of you and me. A fertilized egg is a potential person, and there is a big difference. I suspect that the measure will go down to defeat with at least 60 percent against. So it's a losing issue for Republicans either way. Meanwhile, the big-money Democratic donors will be more than happy to hammer any Republican (in an up-for-grabs seat) foolish enough to endorse the measure. Just how large of an advantage do Republicans (who retain the registered-voter edge) want to give Democrats in this state?

If Republicans had a lick of sense -- and I'm convinced that they don't -- they would come out in droves against the measure. I predict that they won't, which indicates only the extent that the religious right has them politician-whipped.

Legislature Tries to Restrict Guns, Abortion

The following column originally appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press.

February 18, 2008

Pick your poison: Dems and GOP both violate rights

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

A legislative committee heard two bills in two weeks. Both votes split along party lines. The first week, all the Democrats voted to violate our rights. The second week, all the Republicans did so.

Senator Sue Windels sponsored Bill 49 to impose criminal penalties on gun owners who do not store their guns the way that district attorneys deem proper after the fact. On Monday, February 4, the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee heard the bill. Windels joined with fellow Democrats Chris Romer and Abel Tapia to pass the bill to the next committee, over the objections of Republicans Bill Cadman and David Schultheis.

On February 11, the committee heard Schultheis's Bill 95 (which Cadman cosponsored) to impose criminal penalties on doctors who fail to observe a 24-hour waiting period for their clients seeking an abortion. Both Republicans voted for the bill, though the Democrats killed it.

While the bills cover quite different situations, they have much in common. Both bills would impose useless additions to Colorado's already-massive books of statutes. Both would create arbitrary and onerous restrictions on activities that people have a right to pursue but that some ultimately want to ban altogether.

Let's first look at the gun bill. As the Daily Sentinel pointed out earlier in the month, existing laws already cover cases of placing children in danger. The effect of Bill 49 would be to discourage citizens from keeping firearms for self-defense. When citizens are too afraid of prosecution to defend themselves, the advantage goes to the real criminals.

As Cadman said in a Republican press release, "We have a good balance right now between the need to keep kids from misusing guns and the right of homeowners to be able to defend their families. This bill would upset that balance by giving home intruders the upper hand and tying the hands of homeowners... This bill likely would have a chilling effect on gun ownership."

Originally, Bill 49 stated that it applied if a gun owner "reasonably should know that a minor would be able to gain access to the firearm" without permission. And who gets to decide what's "reasonable?" Prosecutors, some of whom are unfriendly toward defensive gun ownership. The committee dropped that language in favor of a line that says the bill applies in cases of "criminal negligence." In other words, you commit "criminal negligence" if you commit "criminal negligence" -- again as determined by prosecutors.

Another problem with the bill is that it says it doesn't apply if a minor obtains the gun through burglary or robbery. So does the criminal prosecution of the gun owner hinge upon the criminal conviction of the minor? Who decides whether the minor should face charges? Apparently, again the prosecutor gets to make the call.

Of course, while many Colorado Democrats don't express this motivation, many activists who favor storage laws, waiting periods, and other restrictions ultimately want to ban the use and ownership of guns, at least for defensive purposes.

What about the abortion bill? Bill 95 would have required a doctor to provide information about ultrasounds to all women seeking an abortion, then imposed a 24-hour waiting period. But women already know what abortion implies -- the destruction of a potential but not actual person -- and are already free to order ultrasounds.

As Jody Berger of Planned Parenthood pointed out to us, an ultrasound cannot even detect a pregnancy before five weeks. And Planned Parenthood already administers an ultrasound for every abortion in its clinics, which offer abortions from around five to eighteen weeks of pregnancy. (The clinics offer "morning after" medications up to 72 hours following intercourse.)

Berger said, "What would have been onerous is the 24-hour waiting period. In a lot of rural areas, a doctor is available only one day a week. And clients who drive three or four hours to come to the Planned Parenthood center in Denver have to make that drive twice. If they come with their husband or boyfriend, that means two people have to take two days off of work."

So Schultheis, who is on record opposing waiting periods for purchases of firearms, is the sponsor of the bill to impose waiting periods for abortions.

Mike Saccone recorded the hypocrisy of Republicans and Democrats alike in his January 23 and February 11 stories for the Sentinel. Shultheis said his bill was "trying to whatever degree we can to reduce the number of abortions" -- the exact attitude of the anti-gun lobby toward gun ownership. Of course, Schultheis really wants to ban abortion, just as many anti-gun activists ultimately want to ban defensive gun ownership.

And Romer said of the abortion bill, "It puts a burden on certain people" -- the way that the gun bill that Romer voted for puts a burden on gun owners.

These Democrats and Republicans deserve each other. But Colorado deserves better.

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Waiting Periods for Abortions? (Link)

At AriArmstrong.com, I've posted a brief critique of a proposal to require waiting periods and ultrasound services before a woman can obtain an abortion. As the matter pertains to Colorado politics as well as to religion, I'll include an excerpt here:

Beyond the extra, needless expense of time and money, the bill treats women as though they were incapable of making their own decisions without the help of politicians. Women are already fully aware of the nature and implications of abortion, and they can already order an ultrasound if they want one. The bill likewise subjects doctors to the whims of political force.

Ironically, [State Senator David] Schultheis [the bill's sponsor] answered yes to the following question: "Would you oppose legislation mandating a waiting period before the purchase of a firearm?" Apparently, Schultheis believes that women are responsible enough to decide to buy a gun when they want, but not to get an abortion when they want.

Just as the anti-gun lobby attempts to impose additional costs on gun owners in order to discourage gun ownership, so Schultheis wants to impose additional costs on women who want an abortion.

As women have the right to purchase tools of self-defense without political interference, so they have the right to get an abortion without political interference. Of course, Schultheis believes that women have no moral right, and should be striped of their legal right, to get an abortion. He's wrong, but rather than address the issue head-on, he undermines his other views in calling for costly and invasive political restrictions on legally permitted actions.