In 9News’ story yesterday about Rep. Mike Coffman’s statement that “in his heart,” Obama is “just not an American,” Political Analyst Floyd Ciruli was paraphrased as saying Coffman’s comment is a “blow to his moderate image.”

I’m tainted, I know, and possibly unable to fathom the mainstream image of Coffman, but my perception is that Coffman is pretty far to the right on the political spectrum, a far cry from a “moderate.”

So I called Ciruli to find out if, indeed, he thought Coffman had a “moderate image.”

Ciruli said the 9News’ paraphrase was accurate, but his view wasn’t based on any polling he’d seen on Coffman.

“Coffman’s major image comes from some his statewide offices, which have essentially been of the administrative type and have not led him to be known as a person of intensely right-wing views,” Ciruli told me. “He’s been the Secretary of State. He’s been the Treasurer. Those are administrative jobs that don’t lead you to have a particular image.”

Ciruli also said his view of Coffman’s image is partially based on the fact that Coffman replaced Tom Tancredo.

“And under those circumstances, you’re always a moderate,” Ciruli said, adding also that Coffman is “not really a favorite of the Republican establishment.”

I told Ciruli that I hadn’t seen any polling either, but I did notice that Coffman repeatedly called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” that he supported Colorado’s personhood amendment, that he wanted to pull the Peace Corps out of China, and that he said the flat tax has “tremendous value.” (I forgot to mention that Coffman supported Rick Perry for President and Paul Ryan for Vice President.)

“I don’t disagree with you,” Ciruli told me, adding that Coffman’s immigration views are out of the moderate range.

“They are relatively new issues,” Ciruli said. “They reflect to some extent his new environment, which is a very conservative Congress.”

“I assume [the Obama comment] was a faux pas, and he wisely apologized very quickly,” Ciruli told me, pointing out that Coffman’s mostly Arapahoe-County district is one of the most competitive in the country.

“He had not apologized when I did my interview last night at 5:30,” said Ciruli. “I specifically asked because I thought, my gosh, he should get out from under this, unless this is actually what he thinks, and he did.”

Pro-life Super Pac has released an ad, panned by Factcheck.org, claiming that Mitt Romney “enforced a law which required Catholic hospitals to provide abortions.”

Factcheck.org reported:

What Romney enforced — after first vetoing the legislation — was a requirement that hospitals provide rape victims with the morning-after pill, a drug that is designed to stop pregnancy from occurring if taken within a few days of unprotected intercourse. He didn’t tell Catholic hospitals that they had to perform abortions.

But respected Factcheck.org journalist Lori Robertson wasn’t fair to Pro-life Super Pac, because she did not state, as a matter of fact, that Mitt Romney himself would agree with Pro-life Super Pac that, as governor of Massachusetts, he was indeed telling Catholic hospitals to provide abortions.

I’ll explain why below. But first, check out the ad, which Pro-Life Super Pac spokesman Jason Jones tells me is running now in Michigan.

We know that Mitt Romney believes that life begins at conception. He said in October he “absolutely” would have supported an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution codifying that life begins at conception. A few weeks later, Romney confirmed that “life begins at conception.”

If you’re Romney, and you believe life begins at conception, then you have no choice but to acknowledge that birth control pills and the morning after pill are threats to life as you define it.

That’s because certain types of birth control pills as well as the morning-after pill, which is essentially high-dose birth control, have the potential to destroy fertilized eggs, or zygotes, by making it harder for them to implant in the uterus.

Manufacturers of birth control pills and the morning after pill (also called Plan B) state that their products alter the lining of the uterus “which may inhibit implantation.”

“You don’t know whether the action is birth control or contraception,” Pro-life Super Pac’s Jones told me. Politifact.org arrived at the same conclusion here. Personhood U.S.A. Legal Analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones emailed me, “At best, Romney forced Catholic hospitals to play Russian roulette with innocent human beings, at worst he forced Catholic hospitals to be an accessory to murder, so we have no qualms with the statement made by the Pro-life Super PAC.”

If he were consistent, Romney would say that hospitals offering birth control pills and Plan B are providing abortions. That’s what he’d say today. (That’s not what I’d say, because I don’t believe life begins at conception, but that’s what Romney would say.)

And though he’s flipped around on abortion during his political career, Romney had the same view in 2005, when he vetoed a bill requiring hospitals to provide Plan B, because, he wrote,

“The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.”

Factcheck.org argues that this claim may not represent his true feelings about Plan B because:

But [Romney] later said, when deciding that Catholic hospitals wouldn’t be exempt from providing the pill to rape victims: “My personal view in my heart of hearts is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraceptives or emergency contraceptive information.”

But this says nothing about his view on whether he thinks Plan B can destroy zygotes. He’s just saying he’d allow access to rape victims, which is a position he has now abandoned in view of his support for state personhood amendments giving legal rights to all zygotes, even if conceived during rape.

Reporters at Factcheck.org need to be clear on Romney’s view on Plan B, because the ramifications go way beyond the Pro-Life Pac ad.

Today, as I wrote, Romney absolutely supports state personhood amendements, which means he wants state governments to define life his way, as beginning at conception.

This means that not only is Romney personally opposed to Plan B, certain birth control pills, and abortions, but he favors banning them, through state law.

That’s a big deal for women, and all of us, and reporters should be clear on where Romney stands.

ColoradoPols broke the news last month that congressional candidate Joe Coors gave $1,000 to Personhood Colorado, in support of its efforts to pass a personhood amendment in 2010.

A handful of news outlets subsequently reported the Coors donation, but it appears no one has asked personhood activists about Coors and his support of their effort. You’d assume the personhood folks would welcome his support because Coors could become a key ally.

If Coors is elected to Congress, he could put his vote where his money is. And, presumably, where his mouth has also been.

Coors could join the 111 U.S. Representatives who’ve co-sponsored legislation that would define “person” under the 14th Amendment to include zygotes. If passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, these bills would make Personhood national law, and likely set off a court battle. ((Due to unusual language in the 14th Amendment, a more complicated process, involving approval by state legislatures, is not required to amend the 14th Amendment.)

I know it’s not likely that these bills would become law, but I’ve lost count of the unlikely things that have happened in American politics over the last two years. So, given the seriousness of the bills, which would outlaw forms of contraception as well as abortion, they should be taken seriously.

Yet, no reporter has asked Coors if he’d co-sponsor these bills. It’s obviously fair and important question.

Asked about Coors, Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia-Jones told me via email, “Joe Coors did donate to the Personhood amendment in Colorado in the past.  I have not personally met Joe Coors, but I have heard that he is supportive of Personhood as he is pro-life.”

Garcia Jones wrote that he welcomes the continued support of Coors, just as he “would welcome all support, whether wealthy and powerful or poor and humble.”

Coors is battling Matt Ball in the GOP primary, to be held in June, for the opportunity to challenge U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter. Ball is kicking off his campaign tomorrow at Front Range Community College.

Reporters are having a real hard time sorting out Mitt Romney’s position on personhood. Here’s a quick and easy way for journos to think about the issue, and Romney’s evolving stance on it.

Personhood has two tracks: federal and state. At the federal level, proponents are trying to pass a law giving fertilized eggs (or zygotes) the legal rights of a “person,” under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. At the state level, the personhood campaign wants to pass amendments to state constitutions defining life as beginning at conception.

Romney on federal personhood. Romney has made it clear that he’s currently against federal personhood. This is a flip from his position in 2007, when he stated on national TV that he favored a GOP platform position supporting a “human life amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, which would ban abortion at the federal level. When Romney said this, he believed, like he does now, that life begins at conception, so Romney’s federal ban on abortion, based on his definition of “life,” would have met the requirements of Personhood USA for a national personhood law. But last year at a GOP prez forum, Romney abandoned this position because now thinks adding personhood to the U.S. Constitution could set up a “constituional crisis.”

Romney on state personhood. In October, Romney told Fox News’ Mike Huckabee that he “absolutely” would have signed an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution establishing that life begins a conception. Later, Romney’s spokespeople backed up this position by telling Politico’s Ben Smith and other reporters that Romney supports “efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception” and that “these matters should be left up to states to decide.”

Summary:  Romney isn’t completely clear on this issue (I’m rolling my eyes as I write that), but  it’s fair to say that Romney has flip flopped on personhood during his career. It’s also a fact that he’s currently against a federal personhood law but for state-based personhood amendments (consistent with his “life-begins-at-conception” belief and his statement to Huckabee).

One prominent journalist who’s clear on Romney’s personhood stance is Curtis Hubbard, editorial page editor of the centrist-right Denver Post. He qualifies as an expert on personhood, having directed news coverage of the personhood ballot initiative in Colorado in 2010. He recently stated on Colorado Public Television, KBDI, “Romney already came out for personhood at the state level.”

Reporters nationally will have a chance to clarify Romney’s views on personhood Saturday, as they report on Florida’s Personhood USA-sponsored presidential forum. Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum will attend.

Romney will not attend the event, replicating his pattern of skipping such forums in South Carolina and Iowa, but reporters can contrast his views with personhood promoters Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum.

Personhood USA may also hold a prez forum in Colorado, prior to its Feb. 7 caucus. Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones emailed me yesterday, in response to my query, that Colorado is a “definite candidate” for a personhood forum.

If you’ve ever tried to “fact check” a political ad, you know it’s a lot harder than it looks. What do the ads’ sparse words mean? What do the candidate’s vague positions include? At what point is an ad untrue, or three quarters of the way to the right on the pants-on-fire meter?

But to you journalists out there who are trying to fact check ads having anything to do with Mitt Romney and abortion, get ready for your head to explode.

Take for example Newt Gingrich’s ad attacking Romney for allegedly expanding access to abortion.

Respected journalists Lori Robertson and Robert Farley at Factcheck.org concluded that it was “highly misleading” for Gingrich’s ad to state that Romney “expanded access to abortion pills.”

The “abortion pills” in question are what most people would call “contraception.”  Known as “Plan B” or morning-after pills, they are high-dose birth-control pills that can prevent a fertilized egg (or zygote) from thriving in the uterus. In 2005, Romney allowed expanded access to Plan B in Massachusetts.

Factcheck.org reported that because “abortion” was not actually involved, but instead “contraception” pills, then Romney cannot be credibly accused of expanding access to abortion.

I personally would agree with Factcheck.org, and its conclusion is in keeping with current law, but Romney himself would not agree.

Romney, like Gingrich, has stated that life begins at conception, and Romney told Mike Huckabee just this year that he’d “absolutely” favor a personhood amendment in Massachusetts’ constitution defining life as beginning at conception.

So Romney himself would define Plan B as an “abortifacient,” which is the word that anti-abortion activists use to describe “contraception” and other things that cause “abortions.” And he’s written as much.

Therefore, using Romney’s own definition of abortion, he expanded access to abortion by giving the green light to morning-after pills. And to be consistent, Romney would have to call them “abortion pills.”

To be fair to Gingrich, Factcheck.org should have stated this as they panned the Gingrich ad. Gingrich and Romney should define “abortion” and “contraception” the same way, because they both believe life begins at conception.

But Factcheck.org did offer some key context:

To be sure, some abortion opponents have pushed for a so-called “personhood” law declaring that life begins at the moment a human egg is fertilized, which could make the “morning-after” pill illegal, and arguably an “abortion” pill. But an effort to pass such a law by ballot initiative was recently rejected by more than 55 percent of voters in Mississippi. And of course, it wasn’t the law in Massachusetts.

Our view is that the language in the ad misleads voters into thinking Romney expanded access to RU-486, which – there’s no debate about it – induces abortion.

Nationally, journalists have had a hard time sorting out Romney’s position on personhood, with some reporters incorrectly stating that Romney has no position on the issue.

But here in Colorado, possibly because he’s had plenty of time to ponder the issue during past election cycles with personhood amendments, Denver Post Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard has correctly concluded that Romney has come out for personhood. (Romney has flipped his position of federal personhood, but he’s stated that he’s for it at the state level.)

Just this week, Hubbard re-stated his view on Jon Caldara’s Devil’s Advocate television show on Colorado Public Television, KBDI:

“Romney already came out for personhood at the state level,” Hubbard told Caldara. “So if Romney is the nominee, he’s going to be asked that same question [about personhood]. It’s going to be difficult.”

Difficult for Romney would be seeing the doctor in the Bennet TV ad saying Romney wants to outlaw birth control, which, by Romney’s and Gingrich’s definition of “abortion,” and given their support of “personhood,” would be deemed by fact checkers as absolutely true.

Now that Colorado’s review board for ballot initiatives has approved the wording of the proposed personhood amendment, and the race is on to find enough signatures to put it on the November ballot, you wonder if more reporters will get around to asking the measure’s former supporters, like Rep. Mike Coffman, Rep. Cory Gardner, and Rep. Doug Lamborn, whether they will go for it again in 2012.

Given what happened to failed Colo Senate Candidate Ken Buck, who un-endorsed the personhood amendment shortly after he won the GOP Senate primary in 2010 and was attacked nonstop on abortion issues during his campaign, you’d think it would be a no brainer for reporters to address the serious politics of this issue, pick up the phone, and call those guys listed up there (Coffman, Gardner, and Lamborn).

But it looks as if only the Colorado Statesman has tried to reach them so far, and it did so back in November.

Coffman was out of town when the Statesman tried to reach him, Gardner did not return the Statesman’s call, and Lamborn said he’s a “supporter of personhood.”

A spokesman for Coffman told me Thursday that he’d check to find out what his boss’ current position on personhood is.

The Colorado Right to Life blog states that Coffman, during the 2010 election cycle, was “on record supporting Personhood and is on record as Pro-Life with no exceptions.”

I asked Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks how her organization knew that Coffman supported personhood two years ago.

“Our blog reports on our candidate survey results,” she emailed me. “Congressman Coffman answered all our questions correctly to reflect he is a no exceptions pro life elected official who supports the personhood of the baby in the womb.”

I asked what “no exceptions” means in the context of the survey, and she said, among other things, that abortion would not be allowed in the case of rape and incest.

“Babies are persons, not ‘exceptions,'” she emailed me. “No innocent baby should be punished for the crime of his or her father. If mom’s life is in danger, the doctor has two patients & he should make every effort to save both. BTW, five of the Republican prez candidates have signed the PH pledge, so Mike is in good company.”

I called Denver talk-show host anti-abortion activist Bob Enyart to find out if he’d spoken to Coffman about personhood.

“I’m not going to comment for him,” Enyart told me, adding that he had a conversation with Coffman at a convention, and it was “not a significant conversation.” He did not specify if they discussed personhood, but if you know Enyart, you have to think they did.

Gardner, whose office didn’t return my call, has been described by a leading personhood activist as a “main supporter,” and the Colorado Right to Life blog showers praise on him for being “100 percent pro-life.”

Colorado Right To Life describes Lamborn’s position this way: “Incumbent Republican Doug Lamborn has always been solid on life issues, and has co-sponsored Personhood legislation at the national level.”

Personhood USA Legal Analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones told me he has no reason to believe his initiative will receive less support this time around than in 2010.

“I think a majority them [major CO GOP candidates] supported us last time,” he said. “And most of them were elected. I think the highest profile ones, like Ken Buck, who did waver, were the ones that suffered because they still got punished by the Democrats, and they didn’t have the benefit of the support of the base.”

Garcia Jones told me he welcomes an expected lawsuit from Planned Parenthood, trying to disqualify the ballot measure, because it motivates his base of supporters. “The only real concern for us was the fatigue of the base, and we rely on the base to get signatures,” he said. “So a lawsuit actually helps us. We’re not upset at being sued.”

State Sen. Scott Renfroe, who’s sponsored personhood legislation at the Capitol during his political career, said he supports the efforts to pass the personhood amendment in 2012.

“It’s never wrong to support life,” he told me. “Science is showing more and more that life is present at the earliest stages. And we have to give it a chance to prosper in this country.”

Renfroe said he thinks a ballot initiative is the “proper place” to bring the issue up, as the state legislature should focus on “jobs and the economy.”

Asked whether he thought past personhood supporters, like Coffman and Gardner, would support the measure in 2012, Renfroe said, “I don’t know. You’d have to ask them.”

Our deep experience with personhood amendments here in Colorado has taught us that a government that gives legal rights to zygotes (otherwise known as fertilized eggs) would have no choice but to ban some forms of the Pill.

But unfortunately, the New York Times, in an article yesterday, failed to mention that some forms of the Pill would have had to be banned if the personhood amendment passed in Mississippi.

The Times reported:

Mississippi voters said they thought twice about the proposal when they heard that it would not only ban virtually all abortions but also some forms of contraception like I.U.D.’s and morning-after pills, could hamper in-vitro fertilization clinics and could, doctors warned, discourage critical medical care for pregnant women.

Birth control was also at the center of the Personhood debate in Mississippi, and to be fair, the Times’ Erik Eckholm should have added “some forms of the Pill” to the list of items that worried the people of Mississippi.

The New York Times itself reported in Dec. that all hormonal contraceptives, which include the pill, may “make the lining of the uterus less hospitable to a fertilized egg.”

Mississippi’s defeat of a “personhood” amendment last month got journalists across the country talking about campaigns to pass the measure in Colorado, Florida, and other states, but efforts to enact personhood at the federal level have largely flown under the media radar.

It’s not looking like this will happen anytime soon, given the makeup of Congress and the White House, but it may not be as hard as you’d think to alter the U.S. Constitution to define life as beginning at conception.

That’s because a stand-alone personhood amendment to the Constitution, requiring passage by two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress and approval by three-fourths of the states, is not needed for personhood to become federal law.  That’s one way to do it.

But there’s an easier way personhood could become the law of the land.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seems to allow Congress to pass legislation to re-define the definition of a “person” under federal law.

As Princeton Prof. Robert George, an anti-abortion activist, stated at a GOP forum in September:

Section Five of the 14th Amendment expressly authorizes the Congress by appropriate legislation to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment’s first section.

The 14th Amendment, Section 5, states:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Based on this interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the national Republican platform states that “we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

Three bills in Congress would make this wish in the GOP platform a reality, defining a person as a zygote or fertilized egg.

Nick Baumann of Mother Jones reported on this legislation last month:

Like the Mississippi measure, these bills, which are not constitutional amendments, would extend the rights of legal personhood—including equal protection under the law—to a zygote, the single cell formed when a human sperm fuses with an egg. The national measures are “designed to achieve the same end” as the Mississippi effort, says Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert and professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress on reproductive rights issues. “The aim of the bills is to reclassify or to overturn…the fundamental constitutional fact on which Roe v. Wade rests,” she adds.

These bills would have to clear the House and Senate, and be signed by the President.

At this point, it looks like the only presidential contenders who’d sign personhood legislation are Newt Gingrich (See here and here.) and Michele Bachmann. They said so at a at a GOP presidential forum in South Carolina in September. Romney has flipped on the issue.

If personhood managed to clear Congress, it would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, which would try to determine whether it was consitutional. The same would be true if a state, like Colorado, passed a personhood amendment to its constitution.

Here’s a list of elected officials who support the federal personhood bills under consideration in Congress:

U.S. Senate

Members of the U.S. Senate who co-sponsored Roger Wicker’s (R-Miss.) “Life at Conception Act,” S 91:

Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] – 2/15/2011
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 2/10/2011
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] – 1/25/2011
Sen Boozman, John [AR] – 1/25/2011
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] – 1/25/2011
Sen Coats, Daniel [IN] – 1/25/2011
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – 1/25/2011
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] – 1/25/2011
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] – 1/25/2011
Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] – 2/10/2011
Sen Johnson, Ron [WI] – 11/3/2011
Sen Moran, Jerry [KS] – 1/25/2011
Sen Paul, Rand [KY] – 1/25/2011
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] – 1/25/2011
Sen Thune, John [SD] – 1/25/2011
Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 1/25/2011

U.S. House of Representatives

Members of the U.S. House who co-sponsored Rep. Paul Broun’s (R-GA) “Sanctity of Human Life Act,” HR 212.

Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] – 1/7/2011
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 1/7/2011
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 1/7/2011
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 1/7/2011
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 1/7/2011
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Black, Diane [TN-6] – 1/7/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 1/7/2011
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 1/7/2011
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 1/7/2011
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 1/7/2011
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 1/7/2011
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] – 1/20/2011
Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] – 1/12/2011
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 1/20/2011
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 1/7/2011
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 1/7/2011
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] – 1/7/2011
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 1/7/2011
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] – 1/7/2011
Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-18] – 1/7/2011
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 1/7/2011
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 1/7/2011
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 1/7/2011
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 1/7/2011
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] – 1/7/2011
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 1/7/2011
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 1/7/2011
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 1/12/2011
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] – 1/7/2011
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] – 1/7/2011
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 1/7/2011
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 1/7/2011
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 1/7/2011
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 1/20/2011
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] – 1/7/2011
Rep McKinley, David B. [WV-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 1/7/2011
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 1/7/2011
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 1/7/2011
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 1/7/2011
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] – 1/7/2011
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] – 1/25/2011
Rep Roby, Martha [AL-2] – 11/2/2011
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] – 1/7/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 1/7/2011
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] – 1/7/2011
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 1/7/2011
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] – 1/12/2011
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 1/7/2011
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] – 1/7/2011
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] – 1/20/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 1/7/2011
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] – 1/7/2011
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 1/7/2011
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 1/7/2011

Members of Congress who co-sponsored Duncan Hunter’s “Life at Conception Act,” HR 374.

Rep Adams, Sandy [FL-24] – 8/16/2011
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 1/20/2011
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 1/20/2011
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 6/24/2011
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 3/17/2011
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] – 6/23/2011
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 1/20/2011
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 2/8/2011
Rep Berg, Rick [ND] – 10/25/2011
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 3/8/2011
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 1/20/2011
Rep Black, Diane [TN-6] – 11/30/2011
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] – 11/16/2011
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 1/20/2011
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 1/20/2011
Rep Bucshon, Larry [IN-8] – 1/20/2011
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 11/4/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 1/20/2011
Rep Canseco, Francisco “Quico” [TX-23] – 1/20/2011
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 2/8/2011
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 6/16/2011
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 1/20/2011
Rep Cravaack, Chip [MN-8] – 2/8/2011
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 4/15/2011
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] – 1/20/2011
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] – 1/20/2011
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 1/20/2011
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 1/20/2011
Rep Fincher, Stephen Lee [TN-8] – 11/16/2011
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. “Chuck” [TN-3] – 9/23/2011
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 1/20/2011
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] – 1/20/2011
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 2/8/2011
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 5/2/2011
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] – 1/20/2011
Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-18] – 1/20/2011
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] – 2/8/2011
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 3/17/2011
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 1/20/2011
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 1/20/2011
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] – 2/8/2011
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] – 1/20/2011
Rep Heck, Joseph J. [NV-3] – 11/2/2011
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 1/20/2011
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] – 1/20/2011
Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] – 6/23/2011
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] – 6/15/2011
Rep Hurt, Robert [VA-5] – 1/20/2011
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] – 10/4/2011
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 3/17/2011
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 1/20/2011
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] – 1/20/2011
Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3] – 1/20/2011
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] – 1/20/2011
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 1/20/2011
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] – 9/23/2011
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 1/20/2011
Rep Landry, Jeffrey M. [LA-3] – 1/20/2011
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 1/20/2011
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] – 1/20/2011
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] – 1/20/2011
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 1/20/2011
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 1/20/2011
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 1/20/2011
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 6/23/2011
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 1/20/2011
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 1/20/2011
Rep McKeon, Howard P. “Buck” [CA-25] – 1/20/2011
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] – 1/20/2011
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 1/20/2011
Rep Noem, Kristi L. [SD] – 12/2/2011
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 2/8/2011
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] – 6/21/2011
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] – 2/8/2011
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 1/20/2011
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] – 8/16/2011
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] – 1/20/2011
Rep Renacci, James B. [OH-16] – 10/25/2011
Rep Ribble, Reid J. [WI-8] – 7/7/2011
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] – 1/20/2011
Rep Rivera, David [FL-25] – 7/7/2011
Rep Roby, Martha [AL-2] – 11/2/2011
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 1/20/2011
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] – 2/8/2011
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] – 1/20/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 1/20/2011
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] – 1/20/2011
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] – 9/15/2011
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] – 1/20/2011
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] – 1/20/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 1/20/2011
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] – 6/16/2011
Rep Walsh, Joe [IL-8] – 10/3/2011
Rep West, Allen B. [FL-22] – 6/24/2011
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 4/14/2011
Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] – 10/25/2011

Additional federal politicians endorsed state-based personhood campaigns in Colorado (Coffman, Gardner, Lamborn)  and Mississippi, but none of the Colorado Congressmen supporting the state measure has endorsed a federal bill.

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog

UPDATE 8-7-2012: This blog post was corrected to reflect the fact, incorrectly reported previously, that Rep. Scott Tipton is not on record supporting the personhood amendment in 2010.

————————-

The Colorado Statesman went where no other media outlet dared go last week and asked Colorado’s congressional delegation whether they support the personhood initiative, born again last week at a Denver press conference.

One could argue that the 2012 personhood initiative isn’t actually “born,” or alive in any way, really, until it makes the ballot, but for our purposes, a personhood amendment is considered alive when the proposed wording of the personhood petition has been officially submitted, and this occurred last week.

The Statesman reports:

Colorado’s Republican congressional delegation was mostly silent on the measure this week. U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn is “a supporter of personhood,” according to an email sent by his spokeswoman, but press aides for U.S. Reps. Cory Gardner and Scott Tipton didn’t respond to inquiries from The Statesman and a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman said his boss was out of the country and unavailable for comment.

The Statesman failed to note that Coffman and Gardner are former supporters of Colorado’s 2010 personhood initiative, and former Colorado Personhood poster child, now grown up, Kristi Brown, said Gardner was, in fact, “one of our main supporters” in Colorado in 2008.

Nor did the Statesman report that, despite endorsing personhood in Colorado and Coffman have yet to endorse bills in Congress, backed by GOP lawmakers, aimed at making personhood the law of the land. Lamborn hasn’t endorsed federal personhood bills either, despite telling the Statesman last week that he supports personhood.

But the Statesman did quote Colorado GOP Chair Ryan Call as saying that “there is often a difference of opinion within our party on how best to advance that cause.”

Also, the Statesman briefly told the strange tale of failed Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck’s relationship with personhood, consumated with a full endorsement of the measure. But Buck later admitted to having prematurely endorsed personhood, without understanding it fully, so he un-endorsed it.

Still, Buck didn’t shed his personhood-like position on abortion, and it is widely believed to have played a key, if not decisive, factor in his loss to Sen. Michael Bennet.

I’m a blogger, so I’m in a good unbiased position to write that bloggers make more contributions to the public debate than they are often given credit for.

No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you have to appreciate the blogger who posts unedited video of public events, like Free Colorado’s Ari Armstrong did yesterday.

Armstrong posted video of a press conference staged by backers of Colorado’s personhood on the occasion of submission of wording for a 2012 personhood amendment.

It’s excellent material, airing out good information, along with Armstrong’s interviews and written analysis, about the initiative.

Here’s his video: