Ross Kaminky’s “Backbone Radio” may have a silly name, but the show is often a good place to find conservatives airing out their differences in an intelligent fashion.

Kaminsky has guests with different views, mostly nuances of conservative opinion, but still. And Kamninsky himself, though usually falling in line with the GOP establishment, isn’t always predictable. And he’ll ask his guests uncomfortable questions.

For example, on his show Sunday, he interviewed Rep. Amy Stephens about SB 200, the insurance-exchange bill that now appears to be dead. He had a Tea Party activist on as well, in a different segment, to give his conservative audience red meat of various cuts.

But at the end of his interview with Stephens, Kaminsky decided to ask Stephens about the civil unions bill, which Republicans in a State House Committee killed in a party-line vote last week.

Stephens repeated her standard line on civil unions, which is that the issue should go to the ballot.

But then Kaminsky said to Stephens:

“I do think in the long run, I think this issue is going to end up hurting Republicans. I mean, not you and not where you live, but when we need to get independent voters, and we keep spending so much time on what looks like, you know, gay bashing, I think it’s bad news.”

Stephens essentially agreed with Kaminsky that issue will hurt Republicans.

“Oh, I hear you. I hear you. Right. And if you look at SB 200, the actual opposite could be said too, right. Will it hurt you in a conservative district where TPs [vote in larger numbers] and be great in Arapahoe or whatever.  These are the things you and I talk about. Is it good policy bad politics? I’m up there to try to craft something good, and work hard at it, and come up with solutions. You’re the same way. I mean, you’re a solution-oriented person. The politics are rough.”

This is the kind of honest debate that you can find on Kaminsky’s show sometimes.

Back in February, state Rep. J. Paul Brown (R-Ignacio) took heat from ColoradoPols for standing alone in a 64 to 1 vote against a bill that would, among other things, allow homeless youth shelters to temporarily house children ages 11 to 21. Today, only homeless kids ages 15 to 18 can be defined as “homeless youth” under state law and be served by youth shelters.

On Monday, when the bill returned to the state House from the Senate, where it was approved 34-0, Brown wasn’t as lonely.

Ten of Brown’s colleagues changed their minds and joined him in opposing “Reduce Homeless Youth” bill, which was essentially unchanged from the version that passed 64 to 1 in February–except for the addition of reporting requirements which were unanimously adopted.

What happened?

“I struggled with it a little bit the first time because of that extension of age,” said Rep. Don Beezley, R-Broomfield, who had originally favored the measure but voted against it Monday. “As we look at the budget and as we look at the situation in the country overall, we have to at some point ask ourselves, when are we going to call ourselves adults and hold people accountable and look at their personal responsibility.”

“When are we going to require folks to be adults?” Beezley said. “They vote at 18. They go to war at 18.”

I asked Beezley about the part of the bill that expands the definition of “homeless youth” under Colorado law to include kids ages 11 through 14. Would he have favored the bill if the 18-to-21-year-olds were excluded?

“Yes, potentially, but I’d have to look at it again,” he answered, adding that he had fiscal concerns about the bill too.

“Extend those definitions and you expend more dollars over time,” Beezley said.

That was the primary reason Rep. Brown gave for opposing the bill–and the reason for his solo stand was not reported in February.

“I have a hard time expanding government,” Brown said.

For the 11-to-14-year-olds as well?

“I didn’t have as much of a hard time going in that direction, but I think there are other programs for those kids,” he said, acknowledging that he hadn’t researched it and didn’t know for sure.

It turns out that Brown’s hunch is correct. Social services do, in fact, exist for homeless 11-to-14-year-old kids, even though they can’t currently be defined as homeless.

But the system would work more efficiently and effectively under the Reduce Homeless Youth bill, according to Kippi Clausen, Director of Policy and Population Strategies at Mile High United Way.

The United Way, through its “Bridging the Gap” program, spearheaded efforts to pass the bill, which was actually broadly conceived two years ago by a group of young adults working with the United Way, according to Clausen. The young adults advocated for the bill’s passage by organizing support and writing testimony about their own experiences in foster care or homeless themselves.

To focus the effort, the United Way convened meetings among representatives of state agencies serving homeless youth.

“If you were 11, 12, 13 or 14, and you showed up a homeless shelter, it by law couldn’t serve you,” Clausen said. “That was a big deal because of how dangerous it is for a child to be on the street.”

Shelters could call social services, which could lead to long-term placement in foster care, but experience shows that a temporary solution benefits children who may not ultimately need to be separated from their families, but need help, according to Clausen.

So the bill allows the state to license “host homes,” houses where trained families provide a room for a homeless youth for 21 days to figure out “what’s the best solution for that family and child,” according to Clausen. She adds that the host-home option works well for small communities that don’t have big facilities serving youth.

I asked Clausen about the provision in the bill allowing kids 18-to-21 to be considered “homeless” and remain in foster care.

Why shouldn’t these young people be treated as other adults and fend for themselves?

She said that, under the bill, to remain in foster care between ages 18 and 21, young adults have to be working or enrolled in and educational program or be “medically fragile.”

“Intact families spend an average of $44,500 after the age of 18,” Clausen told me, citing Pew Charitable Trust report, “Time for Reform: Aging Out and on Their Own.“

“At the age of 18, many young adults find themselves homeless after leaving foster care, because it’s very hard for 18-year-olds to support themselves on their own. A kid coming out of foster care has no one to go back to.”

I also asked Clausen about the fiscal impact of the bill, which would cost state government nothing, but could possibly cost local governments some money, though such expenditures would be discretionary.

“We do know that some counties were concerned that this would cost a county more money, because if a child shows up at a runaway homeless youth shelter, this would require them to call the department and let them know they have an underage child there – and this might require them to open more cases,” said Clausen.

“I think at the end of the day, if you have a kid out there who needs help, and budget is tight, these are still kids. I can’t imagine being a 14-or-15-year-old and not have a home, and not feel like you can go back to your home. There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what it means to be a homeless youth in the United States.”

The “Reduce Homeless Youth” bill, HB 11-1279, has been sent to the Gov. Hickenlooper, who will decide if it becomes law.

Sometimes you want political change soooo much that you refuse to acknowledge the legal status quo, even if admitting to legal reality might help your own cause.

That’s where extreme anti-abortion activists find themselves today with the fetal protection bill, which has been withdrawn by State House Republicans.

The Denver Post did a good job Friday illuminating that Republican lawmakers objected to language in the bill that simply stated the reality for fetuses in Colorado. They are not considered “persons,” despite two failed ballot initiatives and other failed legislative actions. The bill stated that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to confer the status of ‘person’ upon a human embryo, fetus or unborn child at any state of development prior to live birth.”

That’s the reality for fetuses, whether they like it or whether you like it. And that’s what killed the bill, according to The Post.

You might argue, why did the legal status of the fetus need to be spelled out in the bill at all?

Well, because the bill’s purpose was to criminalize hostile acts against the fetus. To do this, to express this bipartisan idea, you have to refer to the fetus as something. You have to use your words!

So lawmakers apparently got together and used words that tried to be sensitive to those who wish fetuses were considered legal persons but also recognized fetal reality in Colorado.

Colorado representatives wrote a fetal-protection bill, with bipartisan support, whose title and language use the words “unborn child,” the term favored by those who support “personhood.”

Ari Armstrong pointed out Friday that the bill’s

-title and language explicitly refers to an “unborn child.” As I’ve argued, this “vague, non-objective” language “obscures the important distinction between a fetus and a born child.” Given that ambiguity, language clarifying that a fetus is not in fact legally a “person” is absolutely essential to the bill.

Now, for a bill with a neutral title, such as “A Bill to Protect Embryos and Fetuses from Criminal and Reckless Harm,” specific language about “personhood” would not be necessary, so long as the bill’s provisions unambiguously refrained from restricting abortions.

But it appears that referencing an “unborn child” for the narrow purpose of protecting a fetus, while acknowledging the fetus’ legal status in Colorado law, was not good enough for the extreme anti-abortion group, and so the bill was killed.

You may despair and think there’s no hope for a bill like this to ever pass due to the inability of one side to recognize the (as they see it) horrible legal reality that confronts them.

But how about moving back to the days before we had written words? This might work for the anti-abortion right!

Diagrams pointing to the thing legally called the fetus could be inserted in the bill wherever the word “fetus” should rightfully appear.

We could respect the fantasy world occupied by the zealots and still protect the fetus, which is the word those of us who abide by the rule of law accept and respect.

The Spot blog reported yesterday that a bill making it a crime if you kill an unborn child is on life-support after Republicans withdrew their support yesterday.

Why? Democrats quoted in the blog post said state GOP leaders gave in to pressure from anti-abortion extremists.

But the article doesn’t explain why anti-abortion activists would oppose a bill that would put someone behind bars who kills an unborn child through reckless or criminal action.

Ari Armstrong explains on his blog what happened on the right-wing side:

On March 14, the Colorado Catholic Conference sent an action alert via email opposing 1256. This Catholic group offered two main arguments. First, the “bill fails to recognize an unborn child as a separate victim of homicide or assault,” as the bill explicitly states that a fetus is not a person under law. Second:

“The Colorado Catholic Conference also opposes the fact that this bill seeks to repeal the criminal abortion statute that is still on the books in Colorado. The pro-life community looks forward to the day when Roe vs. Wade is overturned, and there is no benefit to the pro-life community to repeal our criminal abortion statute, even if currently it is not enforceable.”

I take it this refers to statutes 18-6-101 through 18-6-105, which bill 1256 would have repealed. Statute 18-6-102 outlaws the ending of a “pregnancy of a woman by any means other than justified medical termination or birth.” The key, then, is what constitutes “justified medical termination,” which 18-6-101 defines. The measure severely restricts abortion to cases of likely death of the woman, “serious permanent impairment of the physical health of the woman” (including mental health), serious fetal deformity, cases where the woman is under sixteen, rape, and incest.

So the Colorado Catholic Conference admits the abortion statute is unenforceable, but that doesn’t stop it from undermining a law that would protect unborn babies, as recognized by enforceable law.

The Colorado Christian Family Alliance explained its opposition to the fetal homicide bill as well:

If passed this bill will virtually undo all of Colorado’s pro-life laws, including parental notification for minors to receive an abortion.

HB 1256 specifically removes the status of “person” for pre-born children and codifies taxpayer funding for abortion mills in spite of article V section 50 of the Colorado State Constitution that forbids any direct or indirect tax payer funding for abortion.

HB 1256 is so anti-life it’s even sponsored in the Senate by the radical leftist senator from Denver, Pat Steadman, formerly a leading lobbyist for Planned Parenthood!

The bill was also sponsored by Republicans Matt Waller (CO Springs) and Laura Bradford (Collbran).

I’ll try to find out if the GOP offered any way forward for the Dems, but it looks like this was a one-sided torpedo by the anti-abortion extremists, for the reasons illuminated above.

As Armstrong later concludes, “So the next time a criminal gets away with killing a woman’s fetus, feel free to blame the anti-abortion crusaders who killed bill 1256.”

Last week, state Sen. Greg Brophy (R-Wray) got on conservative radio and said parents of poor kids 1) use air conditioning, 2) smoke cigarettes, and 3) play Lotto, and 4) therefore they should pay more for their children’s state-subsidized medical care.

KOA’s Mike Rosen didn’t press Brophy on whether he thinks kids in poverty won’t get medical treatment under his proposal. So I called asked Brophy to find out.

I told him, let’s assume you’re right, that some number of people in poverty could come up with more money for their kids’ medical care.

But is Brophy willing to risk that some parents, not all of them, won’t pay the extra dough, and some number of our poorest kids will go untreated, get sick, and who knows what else will happen to them?

“I try to tell the truth and then tell you how I feel about it,” he tells me, emphasizing that he believes people “respond to incentives.”

“And I think they will make better choices with their health care, which means, yes, they won’t go quite as often. They won’t go to the emergency room for a runny nose as often. They will make much better choices with regard to that terribly expensive visit [to the ER].”

I had just spent an evening in the ER because brother, who has health insurance, thought he was having a heart attack (but didn’t). It was 3 a.m. and I was thinking, could this be more expensive? So Brophy’s point made some visceral sense. On the other hand, what if my brother actually had a heart attack? And what if he was a kid in poverty, and his parents decided not to take him because the co-payment was too high for them, even it’s an amount Brophy thinks they should be able to afford?

So I asked Brophy, what if a child from a poor family doesn’t get treated?

“That is terrible by the way, and everybody knows that,” he replied. “And I hope that doesn’t happen.”

I believed Brophy, but still, what if it happens?

“I trust that most of them would,” he said. “And I guarantee you that the people who are making their kids suffer for that, are making them suffer in all kinds other ways too.”

“I guess if they are so bad that they refuse to take care of their kids,” he said, “we do have solutions for that, too, that aren’t pleasant.  But it’s in the best interest of the children. That’s foster care. If they are as bad as you’re suggesting, that they just won’t take care of their kids.”

“I know we can’t continue to keep spending as much money as we’re spending on Medicaid, because no one has it.”

Setting aside the question of whether the world’s richest nation doesn’t have the money to pay for health insurance for its poorest kids, I did a bit of research and found that Colorado has Medicaid copayments of about $20 for ER visits, and small copayments (around $2-$6) for sick visits. There are variable annual enrollment fees for SCHIP, the federal children’s health insurance program, of about $35 for more than two kids. Some states charge more. Alabama charges $100. There are also variable co-pays capped at 5 % of income.

Here’s Brophy’s “back-of-the-envelope” calculation: “The average kid on Medicaid or SCHIP costs the state a little over 2,000 bucks per year.  Let’s get from them a $15 or $20 co-pay, which is a third or so of the cost of going to the doctor, and a little co-pay on medicine perhaps, again all as reasonable as you can make it, with participation fee from the SCHIP folks. Back of the envelope, $300 million is savings per year. And it puts us on the path toward sustainability with these programs. ”

But broadly speaking, does charging these kinds of co-payments (some of which may not be allowed under federal law) put kids at risk?

“It can be an absolute barrier for some parents,” said Adela Flores-Brennan of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, citing a study showing that a new $6 – $20 premium lowered the Oregon’s Medicaid rolls by nearly half.

“So that becomes cost-shifting, not cost savings,” Flores-Brennan said, “because we’re covering them in other ways. It also deters the preventative care that keeps people out of the emergency room and going to the doctor and seeking appropriate care.”

Over at the Independence Institute, Linda Gorman told me, “We don’t have good studies that show that kids don’t get good treatment just because they don’t have coverage. Don’t you dare portray us as saying we don’t want kids to have medical care. The question is, what’s the best way to do that?”

But should we be experimenting with cost savings on our country’s poorest children, when, at best, the debate is about conflicting studies and cost-shifting versus cost-savings, with even Sen. Brophy talking about a potential expansion of social services and foster care.

Why put kids at risk?

“There is a risk,” said Gorman. “But how much should we spend? Should we spend 10,000 per kid? I’m willing to have a discussion about the risk.”

Ok, sure, but I can think of a lot of other discussions that should happen first.

When it comes to redrawing Colorado’s congressional districts, there’s strategeric strategery, which you’d expect, and then there’s stratospheric subversion of rule of law.

Reporters covering the redistricting process should be sure not to confuse the two. And so far, they’ve done a good job.

The starting point for confusion at this point could come regarding the GOP bill, HR 1276, introduced last Friday to change a law passed by Democrats last year.

The temptation for a reporter might be to frame this year’s GOP bill (introduced by Sen. Ellen Roberts and Rep. J. Paul Brown) as a partisan response to the equally partisan law passed by Democrats last year. But the two are not equally partisan, if you know the history involved, which I’ll explain.

Last year’s Dem law, introduced by Sen. Weissmann, repealed a 2004 GOP law laying out prioritized criteria that courts should use to map out Colorado’s congressional districts, if the Legislature can’t agree on a congressional map.

But the 2004 Republican law was directly connected to what’s known as the 2003 “midnight gerrymander,” which, on balance, was not run-of-the-mill strategeric strategery but stratospheric subversion of rule of law and the spirit of fair elections.

So, to be fair, this year’s GOP bill (HR 1276) needs to be described as an outgrowth of the midnight gerrymander. Or at least this perspective should be offered, as it was in recent coverage in The Denver Post, the Colorado Statesman, and the Durango Herald.

Here’s the background, based on this and other reporting:

After the last census, when it was time to re-draw congressional districts, Republicans and Democrats in the state Legislature didn’t agree on new boundaries, and so District Judge John Coughlin selected one of several maps proposed in 2002. The map he selected was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Then, in 2003, after an election had occurred, GOP state legislators passed yet another election-map law with new boundaries that could have given the GOP six safe congressional seats in Colorado and just one to the Dems.

This brazen effort became known as the “midnight gerrymander” because GOP legislators rammed their election-mapping bill through the state legislative process during the last three days of the session, bypassing committees and ignoring normal rules.

Ken Salazar was Colorado’s Attorney General at the time, and he declared the GOP legislation unconstitutional, but Gov. Bill Owens signed it anyway in May of 2003.

The Colorado Supreme Court threw the “midnight-gerrymander” law out in December of 2003, and restored the congressional map that had originally been approved.

After this major setback, Republicans in the state legislature passed a law in 2004 aimed at forcing the courts to create congressional maps that look essentially identical to those that would have been created by, yup, the midnight gerrymander! They did this by specifying that cities and counties be given top priority among criteria used by a judge to evaluate congressional maps.

So last year, the Dems repealed this law, leaving the courts to use essentially the same criteria that were in place before the midnight gerrymander. The status quo, pre-gerrymander, was returned, in which the courts are asked to follow federal law and weigh other non-prioritized criteria as needed.

This brings us to last Friday, when state Republicans introduced yet another bill (1276) to bring back mapping criteria that would result in midnight-gerrymader-looking congressional districts.

The bottom line for reporters is to be clear that while both Dems and Republicans are pushing for an advantageous congressional map, the cuurent strategery on GOP side has its roots in the midnight gerrymander.

And the story of that stratospheric subversion of rule of law, which could have given the GOP a 6-1 advantage in CO congressional seats, should be explained to public in redistricting coverage, because the gerrymander is sort of like the Big Bang of Colorado’s recent redistricting history, setting in motion the elements (laws, bills, map criteria) that are spinning around us today.

It’s been pointed out numerous times of late that those good protesters who dumped tea into Boston Harbor in 1773 weren’t against taxation. They wanted representation! Taxes, maybe, but let our elected leaders be the ones taxing us, please.

Fast forward about 238 years to Rep. Cheri Gerou Feb. 11, talking about taxes on KVNF community radio in Paonia.

Host Sally Kane asked Gerou about how Colorado will deal with its budget shortfall in the future, and whether tax increases could be “part of the picture.”

“It’s not my job,” answered Gerou, who sits on the Joint Budget Committee. “Tabor does not allow the Legislature to present tax increases. And it’s not my job.”

Not her job? That’s what the Boston Tea Party was all about, not to mention the American Revolution and the Egyptian one, etc.

Kane didn’t ask Gerou about the connection between taxation and representation, but she did present Gerou with a series of thoughtful questions illuminating the dual-track that reporting on the budget story should take.

First Kane asked about the current budget crisis and then about long-term solutions.

Asked about the future, Gerou said, “Way forward for me is to get through this budget cycle.”

Gerou added: “Nothing that they [the Fiscal Policy Institute] are talking about has anything to do with this budget cycle. We are required to cut the budget based on what the revenue forecasts are. We’re looking at a $1.2 billion deficit, and we have to do that. So, any other conversation about any other process is outside of the realm of what I have to deal with right now.”

Kane didn’t let Gerou, a Republican from Evergreen, deflect questions about tax increases with a simple, tax increases won’t solve our budget our problem now anyway.

Kane told Gerou: “I recognize that the current budget is on your plate at the moment, but there is a sense of where can we head beyond the short term, and that’s what I am trying to get at-.That was the point of my question, to find out what you personally can see ahead.”

“What I can see ahead is business is starting to recover,” Gerou said. “And what I can see ahead is companies are growing. And that’s the best thing because, quite honestly, business is what funds government. And I’m very heartened by the fact that the economy is going to improve and that we’re coming out of the recession, and that when the economy improves, revenue improves and government has more funding. So, that’s what I’m looking forward to.”

Kane let Gerou go, but earlier in the same interview, Gerou told Kane that the next Legislature will be looking at a $700 million shortfall:

“If you look forward to the year after next, we’re looking at a $700 million shortfall for K through 12, to backfill K through 12,” Gerou said. “So, when we’re looking at all these budget deficits, it has to do with the amount of revenue that’s coming into the state.”

So how does this square with Gerou’s proposed “what-I-see-ahead-is-companies-growing” solution to the budget crisis? And her “when-the-economy-improves,-revenue-improves-and-government-has more-funding” vision that she’s “looking forward to.”

Colorado State Sen. Greg Brophy had a long cozy chat with KOA’s Mike Rosen today.

Agreement flowed everywhere, even on the issue of dealing with the budget deficit by potentially taking health care away from Colorado kids in poverty.

Brophy told Rosen that co-pays and premiums will likely be required for kids who now get free care in Colorado.

Rosen asked if this meant poor kids would go untreated.

Brophy didn’t answer the question, and instead said:

Well, that’s what the opponents of charging people will say, but I think when you look at it what we’re doing as a matter of public policy is we are allowing people who have their kids on Medicaid to spend their money on other things. For instance, the average Medicaid recipient is four times more likely to smoke than the average Coloradoan. So we’re paying for their kids’ health care, and they’re buying cigarettes instead. And I think if you look at the statistics, you’ll see that they are also much more likely to play the lottery. So instead of paying for their kids’ health care, they are playing in the lottery and buying cigarettes. Oh, and by the way, most of them have air conditioning. So instead of paying for their kids’ health care, they are paying for their air conditioning bills, and it goes on and on and on. I think they should put a little bit of skin in the game.

I thought I could see Rosen nodding, but then I realized I was listening to him on the radio, and I couldn’t see him.

So, all I know for sure was that Rosen was silent, and didn’t ask for evidence that children would, in fact, not get treated if Colorado began charging their parents.

He didn’t question Brophy’s sources or assumptions.

Perhaps a more inquisitive questioner will take up the mantle.

At 18:00 minutes during hour 3

Brophy: We have grown the number of people getting free health care in Colorado. We’re up to 550,000 kids on Medicaid or SCHIP in Colorado, and they pay effectively nothing for their health care. And I don’t think that’s right. Everybody should have a little skin in this game, and I think what we’re going to end up doing, then, is seeking real copays and maybe even a little bit of a premium payment out of people who are on Medicaid or SCHIP.

Rosen: …Does that mean that poor kids are going to go untreated?

Brophy: Well, that’s what the opponents of charging people will say, but I think when you look at it what we’re doing as a matter of public policy is we are allowing people who have their kids on Medicaid to spend their money on other things. For instance, the average Medicaid recipient is four times more likely to smoke than the average Coloradoan. So we’re paying for their kids’ health care, and they’re buying cigarettes instead. And I think if you look at the statistics, you’ll see that they are also much more likely to play the lottery. So instead of paying for their kids’ health care, they are playing in the lottery and buying cigarettes. Oh, and by the way, most of them have air conditioning. So instead of paying for their kids’ health care, they are paying for their air conditioning bills, and it goes on and on and on. I think they should put a little bit of skin in the game.

State Rep. Kathleen Conti (R-Littleton) said last week that multiple businesses laid off workers after the Legislature rescinded tax breaks they had enjoyed for many years, according to the Denver Business Journal.

But Conti didn’t specify which businesses she was talking about, and neither did the Business Journal’s article, which stated:

“When the Legislature suspended or eliminated 12 tax exemptions worth $140 million in 2010, businesses that Conti knows laid some workers off, she said. The state no longer received income tax revenue from them, and it had to increase the services it offered to them …- but that link was not discussed, she said.”

I called Conti and asked her to tell me which specific businesses she was talking about.

She cordially referred me to someone named Lou Langdon, who owns G & S Vending in Arvada.

“He knows a couple companies,” she said.

Langdon quickly returned my phone call, but he was not able to get me the names of the businesses in question.

“I don’t want to go into giving the actual names,” Langdon told me. “I don’t want to bring attention to them. ”

But he told me that not only did some vending companies lay off workers after the law was passed, but others were forced to close completely.

“The owners couldn’t do it anymore,” he said, but again, no specific names could be given.

Langdon did say, however, that his own company laid off two employees recently, and the law lifting the tax break for soft drinks “had a lot to do with it.”

“Since we’ve been forced to raise prices, we’ve lost a lot of business,” he told me, adding that he lost money because the price for his products went up but his fixed contracts did not allow him to pass on the price increase. He said it’s “a really hard time” for his business and the “government is beating us up.”

Nothing Langdon said fully supported Conti’s statement in the Business Journal, that multiple companies laid off workers due to last year’s law.

In journalism world,  just because you attribute a fact to someone doesn’t mean a reporter absolves himself of the obligation to make sure the fact is correct. A fair-minded journalist who reporterd that a legislator said something that might be completely inaccurate would want to set the record straight, or look into the matter. 

 So I emailed Ed Sealover, who wrote the article that sent me on the dead-end chase first to Conti and then to Langdon.

Sealover promptly emailed me back:

“I am juggling a lot of balls at the moment. So, I will put onto my pile of things to look at the issue of companies and job cuts based on exemptions but can not promise any particular follow-up in any particular time frame. ”

A more than fair response. Obviously, my point isn’t hugely important in the big picture, and reporters are paid to help us distinguish the small stuff from the big stuff. But, still, Conti’s assertion amounts to some dust floating in the Legislature that may cloud someone’s vision down there if it’s not cleaned up by a legitimate outfit like the Business Journal.

A month ago, on KNUS Backbone radio, State Sen. Greg Brophy said that when it comes to health care legislation, it’s “almost committing political suicide to vote against any of these touchy-feely mandates.”

He was referring to a bill that directed Colorado insurance companies to provide coverage for maternity care, for having babies. That’s about as touchy feely as it gets, in a good and bad way.

Brophy, a Republican from Wray, went on to call it “gutter politics” when Democrats bring up mean GOP votes against maternity care during the election cycle.

Does Brophy think his steely votes, against the  touchiest and feeliest stuff, should be off the table come election time?

We don’t know what Brophy thinks, because host Ross Kaminsky didn’t get into it, though Kaminsky’s show isn’t one of those I-love-the-tea-party-and-the-tea-party-loves-me affairs, like you find on other radio stations. Unlike the core Tea Party nuts (not my term), Kaminsky isn’t a social conservative.

But we know from the radio show, that Brophy thinks health-care politics is “really ugly,” not because of the financial influence of insurance companies, for example, but because of the compassion people feel toward people with infant babies or breast cancer.

If only that really were the ugly part of the health care debate, right?

But not all of Brophy’s allies in his battle against touchy-feely health-care mandates are as plain spoken as Brophy.

A new effort to repeal Colorado’s law requiring insurance companies to offer maternity care was launched recently. It’s going by the decidedly un-touchy-feely name of, “Repeal 10-1021.”

And if that isn’t un-touchy-feely enough for you, its tag line is, “The health care bill that will make you sick.” (Don’t tell that to pregnant women, especially poor ones.)

Nothing about political suicide or touchy-feeliness anywhere on the new site, though a tweet says State Sen. Mark Scheffel is “on board.” Lots of talk about “choice” and “cost.”

I guess the politics of health care are so ugly that you have to listen to conservative talk radio to get the full story.