Maes Talks Taxes, Abortion, and Eminent Domain

I have been dismissive of Dan Maes, who is challenging presumptive front-runner Scott McInnis for the Republican nomination for governor. (See my first, second, and third set of comments.) But Maes shows up and answers questions, and that counts for a lot. His tenacity earns him at least a second glance -- especially given that McInnis is the ideal candidate of few.

I talked with Maes at the December 21 Liberty On the Rocks holiday party (er, "Christmas party!") hosted by the Independence Institute. We talked about a number of issues, but I assured him the conversation was off the record. He also complained that I had not given enough consideration to his candidacy. So I figured I'd invite him to further articulate some of things we talked about, on the record. I sent him five questions, which he generously answered. My questions are in bold.

I appreciate you giving me your time at the II event to discuss your campaign.

I would like to again give you the opportunity to further articulate your views, on the record. I have a number of questions arising from our conversation. I will be happy to publish your replies, unaltered, on my web page.

1. As governor, what would be your role in dealing with the military's desire to expand Pinon Canyon operations? [See the write-up about McInnis's statements on eminent domain for background.]

I would like to act as a mediator and seek out a mutually beneficial solution if possible. I do not see issues like this as zero sum. I only have the ranchers' input thus far and they have presented a very strong case for preservation based on many valuable criteria not limited to private property rights, less federalization of state land, and cultural history. I await the Army's position in detail beyond a GAO report that has unaddressed exemptions in it.

2. Generally, when do you believe eminent domain is appropriate, if ever?

It is a constitutionally acceptable process and should be applied on a case by case basis. Application of the practice should only be exercised when there is a clear and convincing case for a purely public use and benefit.

3. Please explain what specific economic policies you would adopt. Would you seek to cut specific taxes?

Yes, personal income tax and business property tax. Possibly explore a Fairtax (consumption tax).

Cut specific state programs?

Yes, TBD.

Roll back specific economic controls?

Clarify please.

[I was under the impression that Maes wanted to cut certain regulations on business, and I was trying to figure out which regulations he might want to repeal or modify. I will be happy to post Maes's additional comments on the matter if he cares to send them.] Many politicians, including W. Bush and Obama, promised to cut taxes, so I'm looking for some specific proposals.

I see our energy industry and the accompanying tax revenues as an enormous potential for our state just like our energy producing neighbors. With aggressive and responsible energy policies we could increase these revenues dramatically. Simultaneously, I have articulated my position on downsizing government FTE [full-time employees] by up to 4000.

I will defend Tabor while seeking a better balance with the effects of Amendment 23. I am a strong advocate for public schools as I have two children attending them, however; we must seek more fiscally responsible reform.

Cutting taxes is part of my plan but only after we have struck an appropriate sizing of state government and started a statewide recovery.

4. As you know, the Colorado legislature directs corporate welfare to a variety of industries, including tourism and energy. What are your views of corporate welfare?

I would like to examine the specifics in each case. Our state constitution clearly states we are not to make investments in private entities. I want to honor the spirit of our federal and state constitutions. I do see tax breaks as viable incentives to spur our economy.

5. The "personhood" measure slated for the 2010 ballot states, "As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." Please explain your views on this measure.

I support it with the understanding that the life of the child is equal to that of the mother and shall never be considered more important than that of the mother.

I appreciate your pledge to answer the survey coming soon from my dad and me. That will probably come out the first days of January.

In closing, understand that we have 3 months until caucuses, 5.5 months until state assembly, and 11 months until the general election. It is still a tad early to have all the answers but I hope I have given you something to start with. Contrary to my opponent, I do have a copy of the current state budget and will continue to examine it, get consultation on it, and come
ready to provide even more specifics in the near future. Thank you.

I will indeed be interested to see whether McInnis is as forthcoming in his answers to the upcoming survey. (I also hope the survey prompts even more specific and revealing answers from Maes on a variety of issues.) I believe the voters of Colorado deserve to know where candidates stand on the issues.

By the way, a People's Press Collective article discusses some of the recent comments of the candidates, including McInnis's comments about the CSU gun ban.

Talking both with Maes and with Clive Tidwell, the underdog in the U.S. Senate race, I picked up a "throw the bums out" vibe, which is to be expected from candidates with no political experience running against seasoned former politicians. However, I have no interest in replacing one bum with another, potentially worse one. While experience and biography do matter in these political races, I hope ultimately they are about fundamental ideas and their application to policy. So I will continue to try to get candidates to articulate their ideas and policies as fully as possible. I hope the voters -- and other political writers -- join me in this.

HIV Testing Opens Door to Abortion Restrictions

Senate Bill 179 would require pregnant women to be tested for HIV or opt out.

The fact that State Senator David Schultheis's case against the bill is shameful and ludicrous does not imply that the bill is a good idea. In fact the bill represents an illegitimate use of state power to interfere in private medical decisions. It violates freedom of contract and private property. Moreover, the bill creates a dangerous precedent that could be further abused by those with more insidious agendas.

David Harsanyi writes:

I suppose, it's possible to oppose a bill mandating HIV testing for pregnant women if you believe it's a gratuitous coercion of the individual. But I can absolutely appreciate the argument that the state has a responsibility to protect children from the negligent behavior (and contracting HIV isn’t always a matter of reckless behavior) of adults. And since the bill features an op-out clause, I don't see it as particularly worrisome.

I'm surprised that Harsanyi, a critic of the Nanny State, doesn't take the "gratuitous coercion" of the bill more seriously.

Here's what 179 actually says in modifying Statute 25-4-201, which already requires pregnant women to be tested for syphilis:

Every licensed health care provider authorized to provide care to a pregnant woman in this state for conditions relating to her pregnancy during the period of gestation or at delivery shall take or cause to be taken a sample of blood of the woman at the time of the first professional visit or during the first trimester for testing pursuant to this section. The blood specimen thus obtained shall be submitted to an approved laboratory for a standard serological test for syphilis and HIV. Every other person permitted by law to attend pregnant women in this state but not permitted by law to take blood samples shall cause a sample of blood of each pregnant woman to be taken by a licensed health care provider authorized to take blood samples and shall have the sample submitted to an approved laboratory for a standard serological test for syphilis and HIV. A pregnant woman may decline to be tested as specified in this subsection (1), in which case the licensed health care provider shall document that fact in her medical record.

Having the opt-out clause is much better than not having one. However, it's still a bad bill.

The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, including the right to contract voluntarily. This bill instead violates the right of contract by placing political requirements on what should be a decision between doctors (and other care providers) and their patients.

Women know in advance whether they are at risk of HIV. My wife is at zero risk of HIV infection. To "encourage" her to get tested for HIV is ludicrous and insulting, insofar as legislators attempt to replace her judgment with their own.

Moreover, this is largely a solution in search of a problem. A Rocky Mountain News article begins, "The head of Denver's HIV prevention program said Wednesday he doesn't recall the last time an HIV-positive baby was born here."

Paul Hsieh addresses the "nudge"-like opt-out allowance:

The basic premise of libertarian paternalism is that the government should use its power to "nudge" people into acting in their best interest, while leaving them the choice to "opt out."

However, nudging represents an assault on freedom, because it undermines man's basic tool of survival -- his mind. By creating a default, libertarian paternalism in essence says, "Don't worry -- we'll do your thinking for you." Sunstein's book explicitly compares Americans to a bunch of Homer Simpsons in need of such guidance. If Americans surrender their minds to the government, they become easy prey for demagogues and dictators.

Once we concede the legitimacy of "nudging," nudges will inevitably escalate. Over time, libertarian paternalism will become less "libertarian" and more "paternalistic."

Once it is accepted that the state legislature should be in the business of telling my wife (and all other women who may become pregnant) to get an HIV test, it is only a matter of time before a future legislator decides that the opt-out clause is useless.

In recent years, Republicans opposed to abortion have been most interested in politically managing pregnancy care, as by trying to require ultrasounds prior to an abortion. Former Governor Bill Owens criticized Schultheis on the following grounds: "It's extremely inconsistent for any person who is pro-life to oppose this effort to potentially save the life of a child."

If the state legislature "encourages" women to be tested for HIV, for the purported sake of the fetus, legislators open the door to future efforts to politically control medicine to restrict abortions.

Leftists who endorse 179 while wanting to keep abortion legal are incapable of thinking in principle or seeing more than a few months down the legislative road.

Vote No on 48, 59: Two New Web Sites

Diana Hsieh has created two new web pages criticizing Colorado's Amendments 48 and 59.

"Vote No on Amendment 59" describes what the measure would do -- and why it's a bad idea. As Diana points out, one problem with the measure is that it would expand political control of other areas:

Amendment 59 isn't about increasing funding for Colorado's government schools. Instead, the measure frees up general funds currently spent on education. So it enables politicians to spend more of your money on their pet projects.

Even the supporters of Amendment 59 admit that. The Rocky Mountain News quoted Amendment 59 supporter Carol Hedges of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute as saying that "a dedicated source of funding for schools could reduce the pressure on the general fund, and in turn allow legislators more opportunity for investing in other priorities, such as health care, higher education and transportation." The same story also quoted David Miller of the Denver Foundation as saying: "As I understand it, SAFE does more than just support education. If it passes, it would free up general fund dollars for health care, which is why the Colorado Health Foundation is a big supporter."

Hsieh's page against 48 summarizes the paper that she and I wrote, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," and links to related letters, releases, and articles.

For her work Diana deserves the praise of all Coloradans who care about liberty.

Colorado Republican Committee Pushes Anti-Abortion Agenda

Some Colorado Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion, and they've funded a flyer to promote that agenda. The flyer was redistributed by the Republican Majority for Choice -- with criticisms. That group recently hosted an event featuring former Senator Hank Brown.

The flyer, "Paid for by Colorado Republican Committee," urges recipients to vote for candidates who will appoint Supreme Court justices "who will protect life," euphemism for outlaw abortion.

Meanwhile, "21st Century Colorado" continues to hammer Libby Szabo over her answers to a Colorado Right to Life survey. That group's flyer makes it clear that Szabo is a Republican; she is shown with President Bush near the Republican logo. (That side of the flyer is not provided here.) Colorado Republicans certainly are making themselves easy targets for the Democrats. Maybe someday they'll learn that faith-based politics turns off freedom-minded independent voters, as well as Republicans who respect the separation of church and state. But the latest GOP flyer reminds us not to count on it.

Hank Brown Rallies Republican Majority for Choice

This article originally was published by Grand Junction's Free Press.

September 15, 2008

Hank Brown Rallies Republican Majority for Choice

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

"The heart of the Republican Party is here tonight... This party has always been a bastion of protecting individual freedom, and individual rights, and individual opportunity. It took the form of fighting slavery, it took the form of leading the civil rights movement...

"It took a place in fighting to preserve individual freedom as the government became a regulatory monster at the federal level. And even today it takes the form of fighting to save Americans who work for a living a chance and an opportunity to keep a fair share of what they produce...

"And in true form the Republican Party continues to be a champion of individual freedom and individual rights. The issue that we are concerned about tonight is just such an issue. Who in the world ever would believe that the federal government and a federal bureaucrat should have the right to dictate to people their most personal decisions?

"This issue is about individual freedom, individual responsibility -- the very heart of this Republican Party. It's what we've always stood for. It's what's held us together... and what's set Republicans apart. We're the ones who believe individuals have a right to control their own lives. Individuals have a right to decide their own destiny...

"Our gathering tonight is very much in the spirit of this party, it's been the very fiber of what it's believed in and stood for its entire existence. And at the point that we give up supporting and defending individual freedom and choice, we give up the very core of this great party."

Hank Brown, former U.S. Senator and former president of the University of Colorado, shared those remarks last week in Denver with hundreds of supporters of the Republican Majority for Choice (GOPChoice.org), a national group with a strong Colorado presence. The group organized the event to support a woman's right to choose whether to get an abortion and to oppose Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's Constitution.

Brown's remarks impress us for several reasons. As one of the elder statesmen of the Republican Party in Colorado, and as one of the state's most respected leaders, his words carry a great deal of weight. He has shown real leadership by championing a cause unpopular with a segment of his party's base. He has restated his party's basic principles. And he has pointed the way for his party to regain the trust of freedom-minded independent voters and Republicans who respect the separation of church and state.

Brown's comments are broader than a single issue: in a few words, he has restated the principles of liberty that we once thought -- and would like to think again -- belong to the Republican Party.

John McCain hardly ever mentions the words "individual rights," and never have we heard him muster much enthusiasm for the concept. Hank Brown said it, and he meant it. While Brown's party side came through when he praised McCain to your younger author, we wish that come November we could cast our presidential vote for a man like Brown.

We know what the opponents of abortion are thinking at this point. "What about the individual freedoms, rights, and choices of the unborn?" Brown did not get into that philosophical debate. As we've mentioned, the paper "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us explains why a fertilized egg is not a person.

Other speakers explained why Amendment 48 threatens to outlaw abortion -- even in cases of rape and health risks to the woman -- ban popular forms of birth control, ban fertility treatments, and unleash legal havoc in Colorado.

Brown was joined at the event by other notable Republicans, including Gale Norton, former Secretary of the Interior, and State Senator Nancy Spence.

From Grand Junction, former State Representative Gayle Berry attended. She's on the advisory board for the Republican Majority for Choice. She said her goal as part of the organization is "keeping government out of personal choice... A lot of us would choose life, we just don't want government making those decisions for us." She said she's particularly concerned that Amendment 48 would become part of the state's constitution, beyond the reach of the legislature. Also, "it puts 'person' in a definition that could be carried to the extreme."

Berry also showed a party side. Regarding Sarah Palin, who opposes abortion, Berry said, "I love her... I'm not a one-issue voter, and she's not a one-issue candidate." Berry also pointed out that Bob Schaffer also has come out against Amendment 48, though we note that he has not done so based on any fundamental principle. So the GOP remains conflicted.

In 1967, Republican Governor John Love signed a bill liberalizing Colorado's abortion laws. We're glad to see that, in 2008, some Republicans are again planting roots in the soil of liberty.

Republican Majority for Choice

On Thursday evening I attended a banquet hosted by the Republican Majority for Choice. I was amazed by the large crowd (hundreds strong) and the caliber of speakers. Hank Brown, who has served both as U.S. Senator and President of the University of Colorado, sported a "No on 48" badge (opposing Amendment 48) as he offered a ringing introduction and ushered in the speakers.




Gale Norton, former Secretary of the Interior, also attended.



I chatted with several sitting and former state legislators. A Republican Majority for Choice. Who knew?

For once I didn't mind bipartisanship as Dottie Lamm and Sarah Weddington -- who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade supreme court case -- also addressed the crowd.

I had a lot of fun (and will have more to say about the event soon). Two sentences kept going through my mind as I talked with people with whom I'm often on opposite sides: "politics indeed makes strange bedfellows" and "I'm pro-choice on everything."

Republican Majority for Choice

Recently I learned about a national group called the Republican Majority for Choice. From first appearances, this group seems to be headed in the right direction. The organization writes, "We are deeply concerned with direction of our Party if it continues to endorse a social agenda that is both intrusive and alienating."

The group even has a Colorado affiliate headed by Amanda Mountjoy (whom I don't know). Here's what Mountjoy had to say against Amendment 48 (which would define a fertilized egg as a person):

Making changes to our State Constitution is a serious matter that should not be manipulated by special interest groups with a single issue agenda. This is not the place or the vehicle to debate private healthcare decisions. This initiative is a thinly veiled attempt by an extreme minority to impose their views upon the people of Colorado and will lead to big-government control of some of the most complicated choices facing our families.

Consequences of the initiative would be far-reaching and would not only include a ban on abortion, but also a ban on many commonly used forms of birth control. If the proponents of this initiative were truly concerned about reducing abortion in Colorado, as they claim to be, then they would work to forward proven effective, common sense measures like prevention and education. In the past Coloradans have defeated initiatives that interfere with personal freedom, and the Republican Majority for Choice is confident that Colorado voters will again vote to ensure that reproductive healthcare decisions remain between a woman, her family, and her doctor.

The group's newsletter offers a more detailed case against the measure. (Of course, I recommend the paper by Diana Hsieh and me on the subject.)

Unfortunately, the group seems to veer into unprincipled pragmatism at times. For example, the Colorado chapter claims that Amendment 48 "simply goes to far," following the line from the main campaign against. For reasons that Diana and I explain, that's a horrible position. Also, the group notes, "Thanks to the years of hard work and dedication from the members of RMC Colorado to providing complete and compassionate medical care for survivors of sexual assault, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed Senate Bill 60 in to law Thursday, March 15 to mandate hospitals to provide information about emergency contraception (EC) in the emergency room." However, the government has no business dictating policy to hospitals. That said, if hospitals intend to practice faith-based medicine, they should clearly inform their patients of that. So there is some role for the law to play in the matter -- as in any case of contract.

Yet, despite some problems with the RMC, the group represents a positive step for the Republican Party, which, under the guidance of the religious right, has become an enemy of liberty and handed Colorado government to the Democrats.

Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life

"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," a paper by Diana Hsieh and me, is now available.

Following is the media release:

MEDIA RELEASE -- COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT

New Paper: "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," an issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, published by the Coalition for Secular Government is available on the web at:

http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

Contact:

Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and Founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, diana**ATSIGN**SecularGovernment**DOT**us

Ari Armstrong, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and editor of FreeColorado.com, ari**ATSIGN**freecolorado**DOT**com

AMENDMENT 48 IS ANTI-LIFE, NEW PAPER SHOWS

"Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution, is profoundly anti-life," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.

"It would obliterate basic reproductive rights in Colorado based solely on the faith-based fiction that a fertilized egg is the moral equal of a born infant. The biological facts show just the opposite: that only the pregnant woman, and then the born infant, are persons with rights," Hsieh said.

"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," written by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh and published by the Coalition for Secular Government, shows that the ballot measure is hostile to human life in myriad ways:

* Given existing criminal statues, Amendment 48 would subject women and their doctors to life in prison or the death penalty for abortions, even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.

* It would prevent doctors from properly treating non-viable ectopic pregnancy until the woman's life and health was in serious danger, thereby causing needless deaths.

* It would force thousands of women each year to bear unwanted children, whatever the cost to their own lives and happiness.

* The measure would ban popular and effective forms of birth control, including the birth-control pill, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies.

* It would outlaw the fertility treatments responsible for the birth of hundreds of Colorado babies to eager parents each year.

"The voters of Colorado must protect their reproductive rights against this dangerous assault. They must vote 'NO' on Amendment 48," Hsieh said.

Amendment 48 Would Harm Actual People

The following article originally was published August 18, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press.

Amendment 48 would harm actual people

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We used to be on opposite sides of the abortion issue. Linn has long held that it should be legal, while Ari once thought that it should not. Now we agree that Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution, is a horrible idea that would result in death, misery, and lost liberty for actual people.

Many years ago, we went to a local event to hear one of the lawyers involved in the Roe v. Wade decision on the legalization side. During the questions, someone in the audience harshly condemned the lawyer for aiding in the murder of babies. The lawyer fired back that science, the Supreme Court, and most people rejected his claim. We left the event where we entered it: on different sides of the issue. This would have been before Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe," converted to Christianity and opposed abortion.

Around that time, Ari even wrote a letter to a local paper (that we can't find now) pointing out a seeming paradox with the legalization side. As far as we recall, some criminal had harmed a woman, resulting in the death of her fetus. If a fetus is not a person, Ari reasoned, why should we care whether a criminal harms it? It was a pretty good letter. But its premise was wrong.

Now Ari has worked on a paper criticizing Amendment 48 for the Coalition for Secular Government (SecularGovernment.us) that should be available this week. Here we'll review some of the highlights.

The first fact that opponents of abortion must confront is that, if a fertilized egg should have all the same legal rights as a born infant, that implies that criminal penalties should apply for abortion. Notably, current statutes define first-degree murder as killing a person "after deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person." Surely that describes abortion, if a fertilized egg is a person.

The penalty? Under current statute, the penalty for first-degree murder is life in prison or the death penalty. One Denver minister has openly advocated the death penalty for women who get abortions. If you oppose abortion, is that really what you want? If not, what sort of criminal penalty do you have in mind?

Many women get abortions for health concerns. For instance, a small percent of fertilized eggs start to grow in the fallopian tubes rather than in the uterus. These ectopic pregnancies can be fatal. If a fertilized egg is a person, then can doctors perform abortions even if the woman's life is at risk? Or would doctors be forced to watch their patients endure hours of agony and operate only at the very last minute? Though most pregnancies don't turn out that way, in some cases Amendment 48 would cause the death of the woman.

But the consequences of Amendment 48 extend far beyond abortion. Many types of birth control would be banned. For example, while the pill usually acts to prevent fertilization, it may also act to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. While the matter would result in lengthy political and legal battles, many opponents of abortion do argue that the pill prevents implantation. Emergency contraception and IUDs also would have to be banned under Amendment 48. The inevitable result would be more unplanned pregnancies.

Fertility clinics also would have to be shut down, because they operate by fertilizing eggs in the lab, then transferring select fertilized eggs into the woman. In 2005, Colorado's seven fertility clinics helped around 820 women deliver babies. According to advocates of Amendment 48, these pregnancies should be forcibly prohibited. In the name of saving fertilized eggs, the measure would prevent the births of hundreds of babies every year.

A fertilized egg clearly is not the biological equivalent of a born infant. A fertilized egg is microscopic, without any organs or awareness. An older fetus too is dramatically different from a born baby. A fetus is totally contained within the woman and totally dependent on her for oxygen and nutrition. A born baby, while still basically helpless, can breath and eat using its own organs. Though the case can be expanded, that's the basic reason why an embryo or fetus should not have the same legal standing as a born infant.

What about the case of the criminal who harms a fetus? A woman who learns that she's pregnant and decides to have the baby is overwhelmingly excited by the pregnancy. She looks forward to delivering a baby and raising a child. The fetus is both a physical and legal extension of the woman. A criminal who harms a woman's fetus deserves harsh criminal penalties.

Amendment 48 would result in needless death, intrusive police actions over our sexual lives, and the banning of fertility treatments. As the title of the new paper summarizes, the measure is anti-life.

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.