In a good story today, Associated Press reporter Ivan Moreno, discusses how the personhood amendment isn’t on the Colorado ballot but it’s nonetheless a big part of this year’s election debate. The Associated Press reported:

An anti-abortion proposal to ban the procedure in all circumstances isn’t on Colorado ballots this year — but the divisive measure is still playing a big role in the state’s political campaigns.

The article goes on to report the details, which I’ll get into below, but readers would have benefited from some background on how GOP candidates in Colorado talked about their ties to personhood in 2010. And compared that to what’s happening today.

Two years ago, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck decided to un-endorse personhood, but stuck to his position opposing abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest. Other top-line personhood supporters in 2010, like Rep. Cory Gardner and Rep. Mike Coffman, did not back off their positions.

This time, as AP reports, GOP congressional candidate Joe Coors has apparently un-endorsed personhood, and he’s definitely flipped on his position opposing abortion in the case of rape and incest.

But Mike Coffman is following Ken Buck’s path on personhood, distancing himself from the measure itself, but standing firm with key elements of personhood, including opposition to embryonic stem cell research and abortion for rape and incest.

He told The Denver Post in August, with no elaboration, that he’s against all abortion, except to save the mother’s life.

Today’s AP article points out that Coffman is trying to skirt personhood-related questions by saying he’s not focused on abortion rights.

That’s exactly what Buck tried to do, but reporters and other media types, like KHOW’s Craig Silverman, rightfully wouldn’t let him get away with continuing the dodge. They pressed Buck on the issue, forcing him to explain his thinking fully and openly.

And they were right to do so, as women’s issues are of obvious importance to voters.

Recall this exchange with Buck on KHOW’s defunct Caplis and Silverman radio show:

Craig: Let’s say, god forbid, that a 13-year-old boy impregnates his 14-year-old sister and does it by forced rape. You’re saying that the 14-year-old and anybody involved in the abortion should be prosecuted, if they choose to terminate the pregnancy, either through surgical abortion or a morning after pill?

Buck: I think it is wrong, Craig. I think it is morally wrong. And you are taking a very small group of cases and making a point about abortion. We have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of abortions in this country every year. And the example that you give is a very poignant one but an extremely rare occurrence.

Craig: Incest happens. I’m sure your office prosecutes it. And we know rape and sexual assault happen all the time, and your office prosecutes it. So it’s not completely rare. I agree that most abortions have nothing to do with that. I don’t know if I’d go with rare.

And during a televised debate on CBS4, Gloria Neal asked Buck, “Will you really make a raped woman carry a child to full term?”

Buck said that “we need to stay focused on the issues that voters in this state care about, and those are spending and jobs.”

Neal responded:

“Social issues are important to the voters in this state. I am one of them. So I need you to answer that question, because in addition to votes and jobs and all of that abortion is very important, and when you start talking about rape and incest, that is important to the voters. So, please, answer that question.”

Buck then said:

“I am pro-life, and I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape and incest.”

This is the kind of questioning we need from reporters when Mike Coffman tries to dodge questions about personhood/rape because these issues allegedly aren’t his current focus, though obviously they have been in the past.

UPDATE: The Post’s Kurtis Lee has posted a Spot blog post, headlined, “Liberal group posts video revealing failed attempts to reach Congressman Coffman,” addressing whether Coffman has, in fact, been answering questions, as promised. Thanks to the Post for following up on this matter.

—————
A recent post in the Spot Blog had a headline that grabbed your attention, if you’ve been following Rep. Mike Coffman’s up-and-down relationship with reporters, a talk show host, and other people who’ve wanted to ask him questions during this election season. The headline read:

“Have a question for Coffman? Reach out, he’ll respond with a ‘very specific’ answer”

A very specific answer? Great!

The article explained:

“Everybody who has a question can come on to my website, at any point and time, and they can get a very specific answer back,” Coffman said.

An answer from the Congressman directly?

“Absolutely,” Coffman said.

A spokesman told The Post that Coffman would take questions by phone and mail and email as well.

Coffman hadn’t been answering my queries, so I got excited after reading this and decided to post some questions that reporters and I could ask Coffman, while Coffman was in the mood for answering questions not hiding (e.g., holding private “town hall meetings” behind the closed doors of large corporations.)

I still got no response from Coffman.

It’s quite a promise Coffman made to personally answer all questions with specificity, when you think about it, especially the answering-questions-personally part, and I was glad Denver Post reporter Kurtis Lee wrote about it.

But now it’s been three weeks, and we don’t know if Coffman has kept his promise. There are signs, including this video and my experience, that he didn’t, but we don’t know for sure, because neither Lee nor any other reporter in town has informed us on how Coffman’s heat-of-the-election-openness-pledge has been working out.

The Post obviously has no obligation to follow up on every blog post, but in this case, given Coffman’s unusual promise, casting him in quite the flattering light, I think The Post owes readers another story assessing whether Coffman’s kept his promise, especially because it was made five weeks before the election and there’s about two weeks left.

One of the more memorable political ads this election is the House Majority PAC’s one-minute attack on Coffman for opposing embryonic stem cell research.

Reporter Chris Vanderveen fact checked the ad, as part of 9News’ admirable “Truth Test” series, and he found it to be true, but he mocked it for a severe lack of context.

I was surprised at this, because, I thought the ad was pretty straight forward. Too dramatic for my taste, but the ad isn’t targeting me (or the three people who read my blog).

The basic fact is that Coffman opposes embryonic stem cell research, which has huge medical potential.

The ad states: “Embryonic stem cell research could save lives, maybe yours or your family’s, someone you love. Only Congressman Coffman says no. ”

9News analysis: “This is a statement in dire need of context,” says Vanderveen. “While the National Institute of Health, among others, says stem cell research has huge potential, the medical community says it will take time.”

Okay, it might take time before embryonic stem cells might save the life of someone you love, but so what? Coffman is still opposing research that could save lives.

To Vanderveen’s credit, his piece quotes a 9News Medical Expert John Torres who confirmed this:

“The potential is huge, because stem cells can do so many things, as least we think they can, but it’s going to take a lot of time to figure this out. We’re talking a decade or two before we get to the point where it’s actually usable.”

Vanderveen goes on to paraphrase a comment from the Coffman campaign:

“A [Coffman] spokesperson says, [Coffman] isn’t against stem cell research in general, just embryonic, because the cells are harvested from embryos and he says that is a human life.”

The Coffman campaign’s statement is in greater need of context than the ad itself!

Why does Coffman think the cells flashed across the TV screen constitute human life?

As a backer of the personhood amendment, Coffman believes that human life begins at the fertilized-egg or “zygote” stage.

Personhood supporters like Coffman aim to codify this belief in law, so that the rest of us would have no choice but to adopt Coffman’s position, which includes a ban on all abortion and on embryonic stem cell research.

That’s because the “blastocysts” used in embryonic stem-cell research consist of about 150 cells formed four-five days after a human sperm has entered an egg. Many of the embryos used in research are donated by fertility clinics that ask women if they’d like to donate excess embryos to research. No pregnancy, as defined by the mainstream medical community, has occurred when a blastocyst forms, because it hasn’t even entered a woman’s uterus, much less implanted successfully.

So Coffman’s fringe position on abortion is linked to his opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.

Vanderveen concludes his Truth Test with the following comment:

“While the Democratic SuperPac is correct in its point about Coffman, Congress has a limited role at best when it comes to the future of stem cell research. And it isn’t clear it can cure all of the issues raised in this ad.”

Tell that to Rep. Diana DeGette, who’s made the advancement of embryonic stem cell research a focus of her career.

DeGette managed to push bipartisan legislation through Congress, expanding embryonic stem cell research, only to have it vetoed twice by President George Bush. Even though she lost, her efforts clearly kept pressure on Bush, who may well have stopped all embryonic stem cell research had it not been for Congress. (Recall the debate about cell lines.)

“As someone who just passed a bill through Congress twice to extend ethical stem-cell research, and was relying on every single vote I could find from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle, I would say Congress had a pretty big role,” DeGette told me.

“And if, heaven forbid, Mitt Romney was elected and reversed the executive order on stem cell research, Congress would be back in the middle of it again.”

Barack Obama passed an executive order reversing Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell research, much like DeGette’s legislation would have done.

“Because of President Obama’s executive order, there have been several studies that have gone to human-subject trials because of allowing research on embryonic stem cells,” DeGette told me.

DeGette is currently working on a bill that Coffman would almost certainly oppose. According to DeGette’s website, the bill, introduced with a Republican co-sponsor, would, among other things:

The ethical requirements defined by the bill mandate that stem cells be derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics that were created for reproductive purposes, but are in excess of clinical needs. The donated embryos would never be implanted in a woman, and would otherwise be discarded. The individuals who had sought reproductive treatment to begin with, must donate the embryos with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

“Researchers say they need all the forms of stem cells to do this research,” DeGette said. “Different types of cells show different applications for different types of diseases. Parkinson’s and diabetes and nerve regeneration are diseases for which stem cell research has shown tremendous promise.”

DeGette: “If a candidate like Mike Coffman says, I don’t support embryonic stem cell research but I support other types, that’s not supporting the full range of ethical stem cell research, which could block off research into some diseases and would impede the progress of the research in general.”

In its Truth Test on this topic, 9News should have told us more about the ramifications of Coffman’s position. So there it is, if you want it.

In a “Truth Test” check of a Perlmutter ad, 9News Brandon Rittiman concluded Thursday that it’s “arguable” whether Joe Coors opposes abortion, even in the case of rape and incest,” as Permutter’s ad asserts.

Even if you’re not a sponge for personhood trivia, like I am, you may know that Coors supported the personhood amendment in 2010, which would ban all abortions, including for rape and incest. He even donated $1,000 to the cause just two years ago.

Then, in August, he told The Denver Post that he would not support personhood again this year because the voters had already rejected it twice.

But Coors did not say that he withdrew his support for it permanently, or even that he disagreed with it.

So, given Coors support for personhood, how could 9News possibly find it “arguable” that Coors actually supports abortion in the case of rape and incest?

Well, because that’s what his campaign told 9News last month! Thursday’s Truth Test cites this 9News  interview with Coors, which was included in a September Truth Test:

…the Coors campaign says that Joe Coors would seek to ban abortion, but would allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk.

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.

The Coors Campaign also told 9News in September that Coors “does not want to make any kind of birth control illegal.” (Hello. It’s widely agreed that the personhood amendment would ban some forms of birth control.)

On Thursday, 9News went further, reporting that now “Coors states he would not support Personhood efforts.” This may be based on 9News’ report in September that “Joe Coors is still pro-life, and feels he can be pro-life, even without backing personhood efforts.”

It’s unclear whether 9News is referring to not backing this year’s efforts, which has been Coors’ position previously, or whether Coors has, like Ken Buck and Paul Ryan before him, and done a big old flip flop.

So what do you do with this, if you’re a journalist at 9News or anywhere else?

It’s time for a direct intervention with the candidate.

How did he come around to endorsing (and donating to) the personhood amendment in the first place? Even if he’s not supporting the personhood amendment this time, why has his abortion position, as reflected in his previous support for the amendment, changed? Did he understand what the personhood amendment would do, when he endorsed and donated $1,000?  (You’d think he’d have known what exactly he was donating to, since $1,000 is not a penny-ante money, unless you’re Scott Gessler)

Why is Coors no longer anti-abortion, with no exceptions? Did he go through some kind of life transition? Why did his thinking change? In other words, how could this happen?

We need to hear from Coors on this.

Compared to the 2010 election in Colorado, this one has been mostly a snoozer, journalistically.

But the 2010 election wasn’t really an election. It was a dramatic comedy show, with so many stories to tell and scandals to uncover that journalists almost couldn’t help but be stars.

Still, reporters have turned out some excellent work this time around, and I’ve listed my favorite reporting below. I’m hoping to see more great work in the next few weeks, but this list is inspiring.

9News Kyle Clark: “Coffman won’t explain Obama ‘not an American’ comments” Rather than let Coffman hide, Clark went out and found him.

Fox 31’s Eli Stokols: “FOX31 Denver goes one-on-one with Paul Ryan” Stokols shows how an informed journalist can challenge a candidate’s spin.

The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels and Tim Hoover: “Anarchy, chaos behind Colorado civil unions bill may have long-lasting effects” They dug deep to show, among other things, how the upcoming election influenced the legislative debate on civil unions.

The Denver Post’s Tim Hoover: “Noncitizen ID’d fraction of those first alleged by Gessler” No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, to understand Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s behavior and priorities, you have to understand the blizzard of numbers Gessler tosses around. Hoover did a great job clarifying Gessler’s figures in this piece.

Associated Press’ Ivan Moreno: “Voter Purges Turn Up Little Evidence Of Fraud Despite Republican Insistence” Like Hoover, Moreno gets to the heart of the voter “fraud” issue by looking at the details.

Fox 31’s Eli Stokols: “Colo. girl registering ‘only Romney’ voters tied to firm dumped by RNC over fraud” Stokols quickly connected the dots from Colorado to a scandal that was developing nationally.

CBS4’s Shaun Boyd: “Romney Loses Cool When Questioned About Marijuana, Gay Marriage” Boyd keeps her cool and sticks to her questions even as Romney flips out.

KBNO radio host Fernando Sergio’s interview with President Obama, which makes the list because Sergio almost certainly got the first interview with a sitting president on Spanish language radio in Colorado.

Colorado Statesman’s Judy Hope Strogoff: “Perry campaigns with friends in Colorado” I love this scoop, with the photos. An illuminating and fun piece.

The Denver Post’s John Ingold: “GOP’s VP candidate, Paul Ryan, emphasizes contrast with Obama’s vision” I like how Ingold gets at the candidates’ underlying view of government, as he reports on a campaign stop.

Local TV news fact checkers Shaun Boyd (CBS4), Matt Flener (9News), Brandon Rittiman (9News), and (sometimes) Marshall Zellinger (7News). I don’t always agree with them, but what they do is really important, especially on local TV.

Update 8:30 p.m.: Denver’s Fox 31 also brought together a group of 12 undecided voters yesterday, and I regret to write that I missed the story. Read it here. Fox 31’s voters did not give Romney the victory. After the debate, one was leaning toward voting for a third party candidate, one toward Romney, and one toward Obama. Another was planning to vote for Obama. A fifth had made up his or her mind or was leaning toward an undisclosed candidate.

Update 10:30 a.m.: I asked The Post’s Jeremy P. Meyer to clarify the impact that the debate had the undecided voters assembled by The Post last night.  Meyer told me that of 15 undecided voters interviewed, 14 appeared to be still undecided and one person was now going to vote for Romney. Of the remaining 14 people who were still undecided after the debate, five were leaning more to Romney and three thought Obama did a better job, Meyer said.

——————

Colorado news outlets are reporting that Mitt Romney won last night’s debate (e.g., Denver Post “Round One: Romney”), but we all know it’s the undecided voters who count, and news stories about undecided voters in Colorado showed that they mostly weren’t swayed by the debate one way or the other.

For example, 9News’ Kyle Clark asked a focus group of 12 undecided voters in Colorado who won the debate, and more said that Obama did.

Clark: Who thinks President Obama decisively won tonight’s debate?

[A third of the group raised their hands]

Clark: Who thinks Mitt Romney decisively won tonight’s debate?

[One man raised his hand]

Clark: Was any person in this room convinced to cast their vote for one man or another based on what you saw here tonight?

[No one raised a hand]

Clark: Not a single person in the room was convinced.

The Denver Post’s focus group of Colorado undecided voters came to pretty much the same conclusion, though The Post reported that “many” of its group thought Romeny had a “successful” debate, and “some” said they’d now vote for him.

The Post’s story on its focus group began with:

A group of undecided voters who gathered at The Denver Post to watch Wednesday’s debate came away mostly still on the fence about who to support Nov. 6.

Yet, The Post’s front page banner in the print edition read: “Round One: Romney.”

The truth is, in Colorado, the best evidence we have so far about what really matters, the undecided voters, shows that the debate was, as 9News political analyst Ryan Frazier, a Republican, put it, “a bit of a wash.”

Yet the tenor of news coverage in Colorado, blaring a Romney win, did not reflect this reality. 9News and The Post both did the right thing by convening focus groups of undecided, even if the Post should have better spotlighted what these voters had to say.

When a politician makes himself available to the press, and reporters, in turn, ask good questions, everyone benefits.

Case in point, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s interviews with Denver TV stations.

He’s now sat down for one-on-one conversations with Channel’s 7, 9, and 31, and what’s left on the table? A trail of information that’s actually useful for voters on both sides of the aisle.

In his latest Denver TV interview, aired yesterday, Ryan was interviewed by New7’s Theresa Marchetta. Here’s a segment of her report:

“For women voters who are fiscally conservative.. but pro choice.. what do you say to those voters?” Marchetta asked.

9News’ Brandon Rittiman covered lots of ground with Ryan, including high ground like Ryan’s alleged 14er climbs. He pressed Ryan for specifics on the tax loopholes he and Romney say they’d close, for example, and got this response:

Ryan: “We’re actually saying, “Don’t lose tax revenue, but don’t have a massive tax increase, and restructure the tax code so that it is fairer, simpler, and more internationally competitive to create jobs.”

Fox 31’s Eli Stokols had a sharp conversation with Ryan as well, covering, among other things, the wind energy tax credit, the Ryan budget cuts, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

From the Fox 31 website:

The noted deficit hawk who is the author of the controversial House GOP budget plan blamed President Obama for adding to the country’s ballooning deficit because of the 2009 stimulus package and Obamacare, which was signed into law last year.

“It’s actually the economy that’s given us the deficit we have and the massive deficit spending and domestic spending we’ve seen under President Obama,” Ryan told FOX31. “Yes, the wars are a small part of it.”

Actually, the Iraq war, which Ryan voted to authorize, will cost the nation more than $3 trillion; and the Bush tax cuts, which Ryan also voted for when they first took effect in 2001, will ultimately cost the nation $3.2 trillion if extended again through 2021. The stimulus, by comparison, came at a price tag of $787 billion.

If you take time to listen to these interviews, you leave with solid information.

That’s how the process is supposed to work, if only reporters (and politicians) made it happen more often.

Anyone think Medicare will fall out of the news this election cycle?

Not likely. And at the center of the Medicare debate is, of course, Paul Ryan’s proposals, as outlined in his two budgets approved by the House of Representatives.

Not the word “two.”

Ryan’s first budget, in 2011, ended Medicare for people under 55, replacing it with a voucher system, giving seniors a fixed amount of money to buy their own health insurance.

His second proposal, this year, differs from his 2011 proposal, as it includes Medicare as an option, among private insurance plans. Seniors could spend their voucher on Medicare or a list of approved health-insurance plans.

As reporters evaluate claims about Medicare, they need to be sure to distinguish between the two Ryan plans, without ignoring either one of them.

For example, a recent ad from Joe Miklosi states that his opponent, Rep. Mike Coffman, “wants to end Medicare.”

Fact checkers at The Denver Post and 9News found this be false, without qualifications, even though Coffman voted for Paul Ryan’s budget last year (which eliminated Medicare for those under 55) and this year (which offers it as an option, for voucher use, with an uncertain price tag).

In Aug., ABC News’ The Note, summarized the 2011 Ryan plan this way:

Critics have called Ryan’s 2011 proposal the “end of Medicare as we know it,” and that’s true. Until now, Medicare has operated as a “fee-for-service” system; under Ryan’s plan, it would operate more like a voucher system, although Ryan and his aides have resisted this term. Medicare would cease to pay for health services directly, instead operating as a board that approves a menu of health plans for public sale and doles out predetermined lumps of money to people enrolled in Medicare, to help them buy those plans.

The Note points out that Ryan’s 2012 plan “made major revisions, including a provision like Democrats’ ‘public option,’ where seniors could opt out of Ryan’s most basic change altogether, enrolling in Medicare as a fee-for-service program that would continue to pay directly for care.”

Factcheck.org also does a decent job of comparing the two versions of Ryan’s Medicare proposal.

In an interview with 9News Political Reporter Brandon Rittiman, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan was asked if he wants to “abolish” birth control completely.

His reply,”Oh, heaven’s no.”

But, as we know from our long and losing history with personhood amendments here in Colorado, the phrase “birth control” has multiple meanings, depending on where you come down on personhood, which would give legal rights to fertilized eggs and ban all abortion.

For Ryan, who supports personhood and believes life begins at conception, “birth control” exists, but it’s limited to specific objects and pills that do not destroy or have the ability to destroy fertilized eggs or zygotes.

Other forms of “birth control,” like some forms of the pill and IUD’s, are not considered “birth control” at all by personhood supporters, but abortifacients, which are zygote killers, chemicals that cause “abortion.”

And these would be banned, if fertilized eggs received legal protections under personhood laws.

So, in the following exchange with Rittiman, if you want understand Ryan’s real position on birth control, you have to get biological with him (as in, what about forms of birth control that threaten or kill fertilized eggs?)

Rittiman: I’ve got a few questions from viewers…Holly asked us on our Facebook page about women’s issues, which have been in the campaign dialogue. She wants to know if you’re simply opposed to public funding of things like birth control or if you want to abolish them completely?

Ryan: Oh, heaven’s no. People should be free to have birth control all they want. But what we don’t want to do is force taxpayers or groups, like religious charities, churches, and hospitals, to have to provide and pay for benefits that violates their religious teachings and conscience. Of course we believe people should have the freedom to use birth control. Nobody’s talking about that. The question is, can the federal government require churches and charities, people of religious conviction, to violate their religious liberties, which is our First Amendment in the Constitution.

(This exchange occureed a couple weeks ago on Your Show, which airs on Channel 20 in Denver.)

I’ve discussed previously reporters need to beware of the “birth-control” rhetoric of politicians who want to support personhood AND support “birth control.” Politicians can certainly have it both ways, because some forms of birth control would not be banned under personhood, but some common forms would be banned. So, it’s important for reporters to clarify what people like Paul Ryan are talking about when they use the phrase “birth control.”

As to which forms of birth control threaten fertilized eggs and which would do not, I interviewed Nanette Santoro, MD, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, at the University of Colorado about this back in 2010, and, the way I interpreted her comments, a number of types of birth control, including forms of the pill will, or have the potential to, destroy fertilized eggs. And if you believe that killing a fertilized egg amounts to murder, then you wouldn’t want to risk it and, I’d say, it would be illegal to do so. It would be like playing Russian roulette.

I asked Santoro if the science had changed since my 2010 interview, and she said, through a spokesperson, that it had not.

So, unless scientists tell us differently down the road, reporters will be left to sort out the linguistic gymnastics they see from personhood supporters who apparently don’t like to say they are against common forms of birth control.

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