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.

If three is a trend in politics, then we’ve got a trend going of GOP politicos pointing to communist China as the modern success story of capitalism that America should emulate.

First came Rep. Mike Coffman who wrote in May that China has “enjoyed sustained economic growth based on the free market principles that we have long abandoned in favor of the redistributionist policies of a welfare state.”

Then in November, Michele Bachmann said, essentially, that China is growing like crazy because it lacks America’s Great Society programs, which she’d dump.

And now yesterday, according to a tweet by AFP reporter Olivier Knox, Mitt Romney held up China as a place where people are getting rich on the free enterprise and capitalism, while, by implication, Americans are watching on the sidelines getting poor.

OKnox Olivier Knox

Romney says China is getting rich on “free enterprise and capitalism — not exactly how we practice it.” Hmm. “Not exactly”? #fitn

One wonders if he China guided Romney’s  thinking when he was at Bain Capital.

In any case, in the old days, three examples of something made it newsworthy. Today, due to the depleted press corps, it takes nine examples to make news. But in this case, given the stakes involved, let’s go back to the rule of three.

The emerging GOP view of China as the (at least partial) model capitalist state is news.  Reporters should find out what exactly the aforementioned GOP leaders like about Chinese “capitalism” and what they don’t. And how do they propose make American capitalism look more like what they have in China.

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

I like watching how Tea Party radio plays a role in the care and feeding of radical ideas. Here’s a small example.

This summer, I had a good honest conversation with Ken Clark, co-host of Grassroots Radio Colorado (KLZ 560AM), about what would happen to kids if the state of Colorado required their parents to pay more for their children’s government health insurance.

Clark agreed with me that there’s a risk that some kids’ health would suffer, but he said there are risks with running up more government debt too. (Sen. Greg Brophy has said the same thing.)

Then my on-air conversation with Clark moved to the bigger picture. He talked about how individual generosity, not government, should replace the safety net in America. That’s a theme you hear a lot on conservative talk radio, and often Ayn Rand’s name gets tossed in the mix.

Around the same time I had my conversation with Clark, Rep. Mike Coffman published an op-ed in the Littleton Independent taking a similar stand, but pointing to a place, a model, where the economy is booming in the absence of the economy-killing safety net.

Coffman refers to the China, which he presents as a model free-market economy, saddled unfortunately with political repression.

Here’s what he wrote in the Independent May 22 about a trip he took to China:

Coffman: “No doubt, it felt strange to travel to a country that is the largest holder of U.S. debt, continues to expand its industrial base at the expense of ours, and has enjoyed sustained economic growth based on the free market principles that we have long abandoned in favor of the redistributionist policies of a welfare state. The ruling elite of China are communists in name only but cling to power based solely on an ideology of economic growth that most of the population accepts in exchange for a complete lack of political freedom. The government knows that if they are unable to sustain economic growth then the Chinese people will question their authoritarian rule and unrest will follow. The Chinese are nationalistic in their pride; in only three decades this economic experiment has already lifted a third of their nation out of abject poverty.

Coffman voted for the Ryan budget, which, among other things, phases out Medicare, but this sounds like Coffman wants to go further, to the Grassroots-Radio-Colorado zone, where freedom means the poor and sick and lowly folks rely on donations.

And, lo, who picked up on Coffman’s point in early November? Michele Bachmann! For those of you who haven’t been paying attention to her lately, here’s what she said:

Bachmann: “The ‘Great Society’ has not worked, and it’s put us into the modern welfare state. If you look at China, they don’t have food stamps. If you look at China, they’re in a very different situation. They save for their own retirement security…They don’t have the modern welfare state and China’s growing. And so what I would do is look at the programs that LBJ gave us with the Great Society and they’d be gone.”

Bachmann puts more meat on Coffman’s China concept. No Social Security. No food stamps. No pesky Great Society programs to sink the economy and hold back the poor from thriving.

Now I’m expecting Grassroots Radio Colorado to start talking about the beauty of economic freedom in China, to bring things full circle in the Tea Party echo chamber.

You wonder how anyone could read former Colorado Senator Hank Brown’s recent comments to Republicans, that a federal candidate’s position on abortion really doesn’t matter, and not think of failed Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck, Rep. Cory Gardner, and others who made similar statements, even though a quick Google search shows just how incredibly important abortion issues are in politics at the federal level.

Here’s what Brown said Thursday, as quoted by the Colorado Statesman:

Noting that he suspected most of the Republicans in the room disagreed with him about that — and adding that “Colorado, as you know, is the second-most pro-choice in the nation” — he argued that the [abortion] issue shouldn’t take center stage in elections because it’s out of the hands of politicians in Washington and just divides voters.

“The reality is, that’s a constitutional interpretation. The people you elect on that issue don’t have anything to do with that. You don’t vote on allowing or not allowing abortion in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. Congress. It’s never even an issue,” he said, adding that most Republicans agree the federal government shouldn’t subsidize abortions.

“So for Republican candidates, there isn’t any aspect of that pro-life, pro-choice issue that ever results in a vote in Congress,” he said, noting that in rare cases Senators can weigh in on the fitness of Supreme Court nominees and influence longer-term policy on abortion.

Thank goodness reporters in Colorado didn’t let Ken Buck get away with it when he said essentially the same thing last year.

Here’s a fine example of a reporter holding Buck’s feet to the fire in one televised debate, if you want to take a trip down memory lane. That’s just one case of Colorado journalists doing their jobs and mapping out the steps of the abortion buckpedal for citizens. The Ft. Collins Coloradoan didn’t let Gardner forget his stances on abortion either.

If you look at what happens in Congress, you can see that reporters are obviously right that these issues are not just abstract theoretical distractions, like Hank Brown would have you believe.

They make a big difference in politics as practiced in the Beltway, where you can’t predict what votes will be taken for what reason and when.

Remember that Obamacare almost fell apart over abortion wedge issues, with Democrats and Republicans falling on both sides.

And in March, abortion issues, including a dispute over funding for Planned Parenthood, nearly shut down the federal government, as negotiations stalled, with Gardner and Tipton among those digging in their feet on abortion. Also on the disputed chopping block were federal funds for international organizations that provide women’s health care in the world’s most impoverished countries, where the absence of these services translates into hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.

Maybe some people don’t want to take it seriously that the national GOP platform calls not only for an anti-abortion amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also for legislation changing the definition of a person under the 14th Amendment to include fertilized eggs, or zygotes. But how can you not take this seriously, given the strange unpredictability of abortion politics and that the GOP has a shot at controlling both houses of Congress and the White House in about a year?

Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Cory Gardner, Mike Coffman, Doug Lamborn, Scott Tipton, or any other federal candidate, can’t say they favor personhood and then expect it to mean nothing to reporters. Sorry.

Reporters know that one of their most basic functions is to air out issues so citizens can understand where the candidates stand and what they’ll do if elected.

And so, Hank Brown, with due respect, journalists were right in 2010 not to accept the GOP post-primary cries that abortion issues mattered so little compared to jobs that they need not be discussed. And they should continue to matter a lot to journalists today and every day.

You learn lots of little things when you listen to talk radio, and many of them you could do without knowing, like lawyer Dan Caplis’ assessment of Tim Tebow’s football skills.

But other small stuff catches your attention, like the fact that Colorado Attorney General John Suthers wants everyone to have health insurance.

You might think Suthers is the last person in Colorado who wants universal coverage, given that he’s pushing a lawsuit to stop Obamacare.

But that’s what he told KNUS morning host Steve Kelley Nov. 18:

SUTHERS: The founders never envisioned the federal government would be in the healthcare business. The individual mandate requiring every individual to buy insurance is premised, Congress said, on their Commerce Power, their power to regulate commerce among several states. In fact, the Commerce Power has been broadly construed to allow Congress to essentially regulate any economic activity that impacts interstate commerce. But therein lies the rub: this would be the first time in history that Congress will be reaching out to every individual American and saying we are going to punish you for your economic inactivity. For not engaging in commerce because your failure to do so impacts the marketplace by imposing burdens on other people who do buy insurance.

KELLEY: But aren’t they assuming [Obamacare] is for our own good though? Really, the betterment of everyone.

SUTHERS: Well, that’s right and that is kind of the typical liberal response. And that is what I get most. Gee, this is a good thing. And indeed it is. We want everybody to have insurance. [BigMedia emphasis]

So, how do we get everyone covered, like Suthers wants?

Why Steve Kelley didn’t ask him is beyond me, because it’s the most basic follow up question you can think of for anyone who trashes Obamacare in one breath and says they want the 44 million uninsured Americans to have health insurance in the next.

Now back to the little things you learn on talk radio.

Back in February, Suthers told KOA’s Mike Rosen that the states can require citizens to buy health insurance, not the feds:

SUTHERS: The state can exercise any power that the citizens don’t deprive them of in the Constitution. So unless you put a provision in the state constitution saying the state couldn’t force you to buy auto insurance or health insurance…that was one that we just voted on that in November, that’s what that was all about. Then the state can force you to do that.

You might wonder if I was mistakengly quoting Mitt Romney not John Suthers, because he’s been saying Romneycare is well and good for Massachusetts, but Obamacare is sick and bad for America.

And if you’re thinking that Suthers must have been talking to Romney, you might be right, because Suthers backed Romney in 2008 and remains on the Romney train to this day. Suthers didn’t endorse Romneycare, as far as I know, but he seems open to it, and it’s a question Kelley should keep in mind for next time.

Another attempt at passing a personhood amendment, defining zygotes as people, would almost certainly fail if it makes the Colorado ballot next year, given that it’s gone down decisively twice in a row.

So journalists covering the announcement today by personhood backers that they are petitioning  to put the measure on the ballot shouldn’t get bogged down in the old questions of which forms of the Pill this amendment would ban. It’s well-known to Coloradans that common forms of birth control would be banned.

The focus for reporters should be the politics of having a personhood measure on the ballot in 2012, in a swing state like Colorado.

So I attended today’s news conference announcing the personhood petition drive to make sure these issues were raised by reporters, and since they were not, I filled in the journalistic gap.

I asked Kristi Brown, who’s changed her name from Kristi Burton since she sponsored the first personhood amendment with her father in 2008, if she expected to get the same support from major candidates that her measure had gotten previously.

Kristi Brown announces effort to put personhood on 2012 ballot

I mean, you can argue that without a Republican primary, GOP candidates like Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner might not endorse the 2012 measure, given its apparent unpopularity with voters, especially women.

“I haven’t personally talked to [Tipton and Gardner],” Brown told me.

“I know Cory Gardner is very conservative, has really good stands. I talked to him on the 2008 amendment. He was very, very supportive. He was one of our main supporters. So I would guess that he would.”

When she says a main supporter what does she mean?

“Very supportive,” she said. “He would come to events for us. He talked about it.”

Here’s Gardner at one personhood event.

Colorado Right to Life’s website lists Mike Coffman as a supporter of personhood 2010 as well, with the statement: “Incumbent Republican Mike Coffman is on record supporting Personhood and is on record as Pro-Life with no exceptions. However, he does not appear to have co-sponsored the Personhood legislation introduced in Congress. We hope that he would vote to support such legislation if he had the opportunity, as he has pledged.”

I asked Gualberto GarciaJones, who wrote this year’s amendment, which has more expansive and precise language than last year’s, if he thought presidential candidate Mitt Romney would support his amendment this time, given that he’s changed his position over the years. GarciaJones said Romney is known as a flip flopper and that his group would persevere regardless of the positions of Democratic or Republican politicians. (No major Democrats support the effort, as far as I know, but Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich back personhood, and it’s endorsed in a plank of the national GOP platform.

Asked if he thought he’d get Tipton and Gardner on board for personhood this time, former gubernatorial candidate and “Generations Radio” host Kevin Swanson, said, “I think so,” adding that he hopes to get Democrats as well. (In his prepared remarks, Swanson repeated his view that said Dr. Suess summed up the amendment best when he wrote, “A person’s a person no matter how small.”)

“I think it’s real possible we could get some strong Republican support,” but he said he hadn’t been in touch with Tipton or Gardner.

In response to the personhood petition drive, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ President Vicki Cowart said in a statement: “Colorado voters spoke loud and clear in the 2008 and 2010 elections when they voted down the so called “personhood” amendments by a 3-to-1 margin each time. No means no, yet Personhood USA and Personhood Colorado continue to ignore the wishes of Colorado voters. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains will for the third time since 2008, work with our over 90 coalition partners to educate Colorado voters about this initiative which aims to ban abortion in all circumstances.”Historically, Colorado has been a state that votes in favor of trusting women and doctors. At the end of the day, Coloradans trust women to make personal, private decisions about their own body with their doctor, their family, their faith and without interference from the courts or lawyers.”

As Mississippi debated then defeated a “personhood” amendment that would have granted legal rights to fertilized human eggs, multiple media outlets reported that GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney refused to clarify whether he supported the measure, which would ban not only abortions but also common forms of birth control.

But no media outlet that I could find reported that four years ago Romney said he supported the federal equivalent of the Mississippi personhood measure.

The federal version would expand the definition of a “person” under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to include the “unborn.”

And if you’re Mitt Romney, and you aren’t shy about your position that life begins at conception, then your support of legislation granting legal rights to the “unborn” is an endorsement of personhood at the national level.

On August 6, 2007, Romney was asked on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about the following plank of the Republican platform, which, incidentally, remains in the national GOP platform to this day:

“We support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

Romney was asked, “Do you support that part of the Republican platform?”

“You know, I do support the Republican platform, and I support that being part of the Republican platform, and I’m pro-life,” Romney told ABC.

So, for almost 4 years, you had to assume Romney supported federal personhood.

But things changed in September of this year, at a GOP presidential forum in South Carolina. When Princeton Professor Robert George asked Romney specifically about the federal personhood measure, Romney flipped, saying he’d oppose it.

George asked Romney and other GOP candidates:

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. Now, as someone who believes in the inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family including the child in the womb, would you as president propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions?

Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich all said they would do so. But Romeny replied:

That would create obviously a constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it’s reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That’s not something I would precipitate.

Two months later, in October, Romney told Fox News’ Mike Huckabee that he “absolutely” would have signed an amendment to the Massachussets constitution establishing that life begins a conception.

Journalists (from The New York Times, The New Yorker, and others) tried to get Romney to clarify whether his response to Huckabee meant that he supported Mississippi’s personhood amendment, but his campaign did not issue a clear statement.

For example, asked about personhood last week, Romney’s spokesperson Gail Gitcho told Politico’s Ben Smith, that Romney believes that life begins at conception and favors a “Human Life Amendment that overturns Roe vs. Wade and sends the issue back to the states,” but she stopped short of saying Romney opposes a state personhood measure. (A “human life amendment” would overturn Roe v. Wade, without giving legal protections to a fertilized egg as a person.)

Gitcho’s statement to Politico above, and her additional comments that Romney is “supportive of efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception” and that “these matters should be left up to states to decide,” leaves open the possibility for support of a Mississippi-style personhood amendment. In fact, that would be consistent with support for “efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception,” wouldn’t it?

Similarly, Romney’s own statement last month to a voter in Iowa, who asked if he wants to ban birth control, sheds no light on his view of the personhood issue: “I don’t,” Romney replied. “I’m sorry, life begins at conception; birth control prevents conception.” This is meaningless because, as you know if you follow the complexities of this issue, personhood supporters don’t oppose “birth control,” like condoms that don’t wipe out fertilized eggs. And they don’t use the term “birth control” for IUDs and some forms of the pill that do destroy fertilized eggs, or have the potential to do so. Those are called abortifacients. So Romney’s statement that birth control prevents conception is perfectly acceptable to the personhood crowd, and he used the same logic to veto a bill allowing the use of the morning-after pill in Massachusetts in 2005.

Romney’s changing position on the personhood issue, which may reflect his campaign’s concerns about polling on the issue as well as the experience of failed GOP Colorado Senate Candidate Ken Buck, has frustrated the folks at Personhood USA, which has backed state-based initiatives like the one in Mississippi.

“Romney made positive comments on Mike Huckabee’s show, but we’ve heard mixed messages,” Jennifer Mason, Communications Director for Personhood USA told me, adding that at one point in the past she viewed Romney a Personhood backer. “We would like to know if he does support Personhood. America wants to know specifically how he falls on the pro-life issues. We haven’t heard anything since the Huckabee show about his position on Personhood. We’re still waiting.”

Asked if appropriate changes with respect to the definition of a person in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would constitute “personhood” at the federal level, Mason said:

A federal personhood amendment is our ultimate goal, but it really depends on the language.  If it protects every human being , no matter of stage of development, size, location, gender or race, then we would support it. In fact that is what we are hoping for.

What if someone like Romney believes “life begins at conception” and also supports 14th Amendment protection of the “unborn?” Does that combination do the trick for Mason?

“I believe so,” she replied.

Like Personhood USA, Planned Parenthood also views changes to the 14th Amendment as the federal approach to personhood.

“Yes, it is fair to say that Planned Parenthood believes the effort to change the 14^th amendment is a federal version of ‘personhood’ measures we’ve seen in the states,” said Monica McCafferty, Director of Marketing and Communications for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. “They are all seeking to provide constitutional protection to fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses at all stages of development, regardless of viability.”

So, until Romney stops hiding from journalists, and announces where he stands on personhood, reporters should no longer state, as as the Las Vegas Sun did Thursday that “he has never voiced explicit support for it.” or even, as Politco stated Nov. 9, that it’s unclear “he supports the Mississippi law or others like it.”

Instead, the most fair and accurate way for journalists to describe Romney’s position on personhood is to write that he’s flip flopped on the issue over the years, first for personhood on the federal level (in 2007), then against it (in Sept. 2011), and finally maybe in favor a state version (last month).

On Kevin Swanson’s “Generations Radio” show, broadcast Nov. 11 from his basement in eastern Colorado, Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks vowed to press ahead next year with a third try at passing a Personhood Amendment in Colorado.

Hanks sounded mildly disappointed with Mississippi’s rejection Tues. of a Personhood measure by a 58-to-42-percent margin, but she told Swanson that the Personhood movement is “moving in the right direction,” gaining 27% in CO in 2008, 30% 2010, and 42% in Mississippi this week.

Hanks invited Swanson’s listeners to a “March for Life” Jan. 21 at noon on the west steps of the CO Capitol, where the third attempt to pass a Personhood Amendment in Colorado will be officially launched and petitions for gathering signatures to put the measure on the ballot will be available. Mike Adams of conservative Townhall.com and others will speak, Hanks to Swanson, at the “Round Three Personhood Colorado” event.

She told Swanson that Personhood activists in Florida are gathering signitures now, as are supporters in Ohio and Montana. Coloradans were the first in the country to vote on a Personhood amendment in 2008.

“We won’t quit until justice has been served for all those innocent children who have been killed,” Hanks told Swanson.

“This is the kind of thing that bothers the other side,” Swanson concluded at the end of his broadcast. “They realize, we’re not giving up. And that really irritates them. And I’ll tell ya, to be honest, I kind of enjoy that.”

Swanson, who’s Nov. 11 broadcast was titled “Making Progress on Personhood,” is a pastor, who tells his listeners that his radio show “is trying to put some things back together during the decline of western civilization, the breakdown of faith, family, and freedom, the breakdown of morality, and of course the massive, massive increase in the state, that is statism, tyranny, government tyranny.”