Fact checking the TV fact checkers: It’s true, not “debatable” that personhood would ban abortion for rape and incest
Update: In my haste to leave my office on Friday afternoon, I didn’t give 9News’ Brandon Rittiman sufficient time to respond to some points I raised after he responded to my intial questions. I pomised to include any additional thoughts from him, if he had any, and I should have waited longer to receive them. So, I’m including more thoughts from Rittiman here:
I’d add that I’m not taking a side on the issue itself.
It’s not my place to tell people what to think of the idea. It’s pretty clear where the electorate stands, regardless.
This a matter of what the supporters say their initiative would do (which we can prove) versus what it will actually do (which we don’t know for certain.)
If I could go back in time to August 7, I’d have added attribution to what I said on camera: “The sponsors say it would ban abortions in cases of rape or incest.”
I take your point about other ballot questions needing to survive court tests, however, with this initiative, I think it goes beyond merely surviving a court challenge.
The language itself requires court interpretation. It’s incomplete, which is why we have so much room for interpretation of its various effects.
It doesn’t spell out any method for enforcement of its provisions or penalties for violating its provisions.
I’m no lawyer, but I suspect that this vagueness of wording is intentional to force the courts to codify some form of law more restrictive of abortion, to the maximum amount possible.
All we can say would happen for certain is that if this passed the courts would have to decide what to do with it.
Since state law doesn’t trump an existing SCOTUS decision, I don’t know that we can say with certainty that this initiative “would” ban abortions in all cases, even if that’s the intent of its sponsors.
I think the Truth Test piece accurately represents that idea.
————————–
Many journalists in Denver and beyond (e.g, Washington Post, Denver Post, 7News) write, as a factual matter, that the 2012 personhood amendment would have banned all abortions.
Among them is 9News’ Political Reporter Brandon Rittiman, who reported Aug. 7 that personhood “would ban abortions, including in cases of rape and incest.” (Watch the video to see the quote, as it’s not included in the text version.)
So on Wednesday, I was surprised to see Rittiman, in a Truth Test of an anti-Joe-Coors-Jr. ad, call the following statement “debatable:”
“The ‘personhood’ initiative backed by [Joe] Coors would have banned abortion even in cases of rape and incest.”
Via email, I asked Rittiman about the apparent contradiction between his two stories, and he responded as follows:
The short answer is because the wording of the ballot question has changed over time.
The long answer gets into a lot of layers of this story, but here goes:
This year, the supporters of “personhood” decided to use stronger language and publicly stated that the goal was to ban abortions with no exceptions.
In the version that Joe Coors supported in 2010, the supporters did not make that claim, though opponents argued that it could have the effect of banning abortions without exception for cases of rape and incest.
The struggle here is that the proposed personhood amendments are worded in such a way as to practically guarantee the need for court interpretation of the extent and effect of the law.
This story would be a lot easier for all to understand if it were a clearly worded ban on abortion that contained language specific to the exceptions.
Otherwise we are all just trying to determine the effect of a law that has not been vetted by the third branch yet. That is what I had hoped to communicate in the Truth Test.
Rittiman is right that, in this year’s version of personhood, there’s an explicit statement prohibiting exceptions for rape and incest. And there was none in 2010.
Still, both give legal rights to a “person” at early stages of development.
In 2010, personhood gave general legal rights, including “equality of justice, and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” The Bluebook, interpreted this as meaning, in part: “If a person’s legal rights are violated, this section guarantees that a judicial remedy is available.”
How could the state of Colorado protect one “person” (conceived under happy circumstances), while another “person” (conceived after rape) would not be protected?
Rittiman might say, that’s debatable, and, look, here we are debating it! Fair enough.
But I’d say that, even though you can debate the point, it’s most fair, when you look at the personhood text and interpretations, to say that all abortions would be banned under personhood, even abortions for rape and incest.
The fact, pointed out by Rittiman in his online piece, that Coors, Jr, says he believes in exceptions for rape and incest, does not make the ad’s statement any more “debatable,” given that Coors indeed supported personhood previously.
Neither does this information, which Rittiman included in his Sept. 5 piece:
A spokesperson for Coors says he would encourage women who are pregnant from instances of rape or incest not to terminate their pregnancies. But he does not believe the law should “criminalize” abortion in such traumatic circumstances.
As to Rittiman’s other point, that there would be a court case if personhood had passed, any initiative faces likely court challenges.
Regardless, journalists still have to talk about what it would do, without always adding that it might get tossed by the courts.
In any case, it’s hard to argue that the “rape-and-incest” line in the 2012 version personhood makes it more court-proof than the 2010 version. They both are equally vulnerable.
But for the purposes of fact checking, it’s fair for a political ad to assert that the personhood initiative, if passed, would have banned abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest, even if the courts might have nixed it