If you were in charge of a big political fundraiser in Colorado, where women voters are obviously a key voting bloc, and your keynote speaker was recently embroiled in a national controversy for his joke that contraception need not be so expensive because, back in the old days, “The gals put [Bayer Aspirin] between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly,” would you disinvite the guy and find another keynoter?

It’s a legitimate question.

Yet, as far as I know, no reporter has posed it to Larimer County GOP officials who’ve got Foster Friess listed as the keynote speaker for their April 6 Lincoln Day Dinner.

Friess, a wealthy Republican donor and backer of Rick Santorum, made the comments back in February to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who said his response took her breath away. Mitchell had asked Friess to comment on Rick Santorum’s statements about contraception, which include his opposition to some forms of it.

Friess later apologized, writing on his website that he was kidding, and his joke “bombed.”

“To all those who took my joke as modern day approach I deeply apologize and seek your forgiveness,” Friess wrote. “My wife constantly tells me I need new material—she understood the joke but didn’t like it anyway—so I will keep that old one in the past where it belongs.”

Still, the joke generated controversy, particularly on talk shows around the country.

Asked if the flap around Friess had given him second thoughts about inviting Friess to their fundraiser, Larimer County GOP  Chair Michael Fassi said,  “We’re going to move ahead with Foster Friess.”

Former CU Regent Tom Lucero, who’s the master of ceremonies for the event, told me that Friess’s joke didn’t give him second thoughts about his own involvement in the dinner.

“I think that Foster handled it appropriately,” said Lucero, who’s served as Chair of the Larimer County GOP. “He was  trying for a joke, and it fell flat. It wasn’t the appropriate forum for that particular joke, and we moved on.”

Asked if he’d disinvite a speaker who made a controversial comment that women could reduce the cost of birth control by placing pills between their legs, Colorado Democratic Chair Rick Palacio said, “In a word, yes.”

Friess has said he plans to back key Senate candidates across the country during the next election cycle, and his appearance in Colorado may signal a broader interest in getting involved in Presidential swing state or in backing social conservatives like Santorum (e.g., Mike Coffman, Joe Coors, Cory Gardner) running here in Colorado.

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.

From one side of The Denver Post yesterday, Political Editor Chuck Plunkett told me that The Post doesn’t like to “cry in public about having a rough time getting someone to talk to us.”

Then, from the darker side of The Post, Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard, wrote on The Post’s Spot blog, that he has a “hunch” that FOX 31’s Eli Stokols’ strategy of calling Mitt Romney out for avoiding the press in Colorado will pay off. Hubbard wrote:

Eli throws a bomb: I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a reporter publicly criticize a campaign for their media strategy/declining interview requests. Fox 31′s Eli Stokols didn’t hold back in his criticism of the Romney camp today. Just a hunch, but I bet his strategy pays off.

So I asked Hubbard, via email, why he didn’t use Stokols’ tactic, when he had Plunkett’s job.

I also asked whether Hubbard expected more journalists to be inspired by Stokols and call out hiding politicians more often, and whether he’d give it a try himself, on the commentary page. Hubbard replied:

It’s an interesting discussion, but my job (whether it was in the newsroom or in this position) is not to be a media critic. As the editorial page editor I certainly have more leeway to comment on media coverage, but I try to keep in mind that more of our readers care about news than how the sausage gets made.

I commented on Eli’s post yesterday because, in my nearly 20 years in the news biz, I couldn’t recall a reporter doing anything like it.  Eli has demonstrated through his strong work on the beat that he shouldn’t be ignored, so it’s probably a pretty safe bet on his part. Then again, a thin-skinned campaign or a cut-throat competitor, might very well use it against him.

The trouble is, the line between the news and how it’s made isn’t so clear. In the case of Romney ignoring Denver journalists, the two are one and the same. It’s a news story that Romney is ignoring the press in favor of conservative talk-radio hosts. (Or at least it deserves a mention in a news story.)

But my takeaway from Hubbard’s blog post is that he thinks the tactic could work. I’d love to see him try it. (And if it backfired, I’d love to see The Post blow up the retribution.)

Hubbard (or Plunkett) could create a little chart showing which candidates actually take questions from journalists when they pass through town.

It could be called the “Howard Beale Index.”

Each time the Howard Beale Index is updated, a short Eli-Stokols-type letter could be published.

If I’m a Post subscriber, and I am, I’d be proud of my newspaper for going after those candidates, and trying to hold them accountable publicly.

One of the many things professional journalism needs to do to survive is fight back.

For example, as I’ve discussed before, when politicians slam the “media” or “The Denver Post,” as having a liberal bias, reporters should ask them for the evidence, not act as if an insult has not been hurled at them.

And when political candidates like Mitt Romney slide into Colorado, take questions from friendly talk-show hosts, and slide away, journalists should call them out on it–so we are informed that a candidate is avoiding questions but also so we know that journalists are trying to do their jobs, to ask questions on our behalf.

You’d think most journalists would agree, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. Otherwise you’d see more journalism, like the kind Fox 31’s Eli Stokols produced today, in the form of an “Open Letter to Team Romney.”

In the letter, Stokols wrote that Fox 31 had made numerous requests to interview Romney (Ding. Ding. A journalist doing his job.).

But, Stokols pointed out, Romney hadn’t held a “media availability since Florida,” giving Denver media the “silent treatment, “though Romney took “some questions from the media” in Colorado Springs.

You’d think someone campaigning to be leader of the free world could handle questions from local reporters, as, say, Rick Santorum did whenever we and our competitors approached him here over the past week.

Congratulations, though, on saving Gov. Romney the potential embarrassment that might have arisen from — gasp! — an unscripted moment.

That nightmarish scenario surely would have been worse than last night’s — going 0-for-3 because you couldn’t even salvage a win in a state you should have owned.

But, listen, if — if!!! — you make it back here this fall, we’ll still be here — and hoping to talk.

Asked via email if he’d ever called out another candidate who’s avoiding reporters, Stokols wrote:

No, I haven’t Not quite so directly anyway. We’re often pushing and prodding communications directors for sit-downs, for access, but I don’t normally try to call them out publicly — and, honestly, that’s not why I wrote this piece. I framed it as a letter to Romney, although I wrote it to simply make a point about his strategy, not to antagonize the campaign into agreeing to an interview down the road.

I was disappointed to read that Stokols wasn’t trying to “antagonize the campaign into agreeing to an interview,” because he had every right to do so, toward Romney or any other candidate who acts the same way.

In fact, I had already shot off an email to Denver Post Political Editor Chuck Plunkett, asking if The Post would join Stokols in calling on Romney to talk to reporters. I wrote Plunkett again, saying he could ignore my question because Stokols’ letter was meant as an analysis of Romney’s strategy.

Still, I asked for Plunkett’s thoughts on Stokols’ letter and for an explanation of why The Post hadn’t even reported that Romney wasn’t taking questions in Colorado. Plunkett wrote:

It is more often the case that politicians don’t make themselves available to the media when they swing through. Both sides of the divide love to ignore us, as they know risking a press avail risks having their answers made public, and most of them like to remain on script.

Here at The Post, we don’t like to complain to our readers — many of whom work demanding jobs — about difficulties we encounter in doing our jobs (though sometimes we do complain!). We’d rather not cry in public about having a rough time getting someone to talk to us.

We here at The Post routinely seek chances to do interviews with those we cover, including the president and presidential candidates when they are in Colorado. Sometimes we get to do the interview, other times we don’t.

It looks like Eli was being clever, and I enjoyed his post and its tongue-and-cheek approach to calling attention to the situation.

No one likes whiners, it’s true, but I think most Post readers buy the newspaper to be informed, and it’s pretty important to know when a political candidate isn’t taking questions from The Post, even if it’s routine for candidates to blow off journalists.

In any case, I was glad to read Plunkett’s assurance that The Post is fighting for access to candidates. You’d obviously expect this, but it’s good to read it anyway.

Unlike the Post, Stokols did report on the air, during Romney’s visit, that Romney was not answering questions from reporters in Denver.

Stokols added that Romney had just announced a press briefing for today, his first since Feb. 1, on the tarmac in Atlanta.

I asked Stokols if he planned to read his “Open Letter” on the air:

I doubt I go all Howard Beale and read this on the air, although I may tease it after my piece tonight and direct viewers to the website.

To which I say, dude, it’s time to go all Howard Beale. Do it for the sake of journalism and the electoral process. The stakes are high for both. And it’s a great letter.

Mitt Romney apparently isn’t making himself available to real journalists in Colorado, in advance of Tuesday’s GOP caucus, but he called into conservative talk-radio shows today, where, predictably, he found a copacetic environment, free of annoying follow-up questions.

That’s unfortunate, because Romney said a few things that deserve a closer look by reporters, if they ever get access to Romney.

On KOA’s Mike Rosen this morning, Romney suggested that he didn’t like the insurance mandate that was included in the Massachusetts health care bill, and he would have vetoed it in favor of offering tax breaks to people with insurance.

Romney told Rosen:

“In one important respect, the incentive to get people to have insurance in our state was associated with a penalty, which is if you don’t have insurance, you have to help pay the cost of your health care in our state. I would’ve rather given a, if you will, a benefit — a tax break — to people who had insurance. So you’d give people a, if you will, a positive, as opposed to a negative. When you do that you accomplish the same objective, which is to get people insured and have people take responsibility for their own health care.”

Romney said, “There were a number of features in the [MA] health care bill I vetoed, and those vetoes were all overridden by a legislature which is 85 percent Democrat.”

Romney has tried to separate himself from the mandate before, though you may not believe it given that it’s central to the Massachusetts policy.

But as this New Yorker article shows, and others have documented, Romney agreed with the policy and sold it.

Romney’s appearance on the Cari and Rob Show, with hosts Rob Douglas and Cari Hermacinski, was similarly pleasant for Romney, with a few questions that were leading toward difficult territory but went nowhere with no follow-up questions asked from two conservative hosts who’ve asked tough questions of Rep. Scott Tipton in the past.

Romney trashed Obama’s entire economic record, literally “everything” Obama has done for the economy, despite this morning’s news that unemployment is heading toward a three-year low.

“I’m delighted that we’re seeing some job growth finally,” Romney told Douglas and Hermacinski. “It’s taken a long, long time. This has been the slowest recovery since Hoover, and one of the reasons it’s been so slow is because this president has frankly done everything wrong when it relates to building an economy. [BigMedia emphasis].

Douglas and Hermacinski might have asked Romney if he supported extending unemployment insurance or cutting the payroll tax, or some itty bitty thing Obama did, but alas, nothing like this flowed from the two hosts.

I hoped Craig Silverman on KHOW would have the courage to ask uncomfortable questions of Romney, like he did of Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck in 2010. But his questions, like should Colorado host the Olympics and does the GOP want pro-choice voters, were easy for Romney. Dan Caplis, Silverman’s co-host, was his usual GOP-mouthpiece self.

So, Romney’s apparent plan of talking to friendly radio hosts in Colorado, and avoiding journalists, paid off this time, though I hold out hope for Silverman and Cari and Rob, if he tries it again.

Ironically enough, Scott Tipton is refusing invitations from Douglas to appear on his show, which is known for its Tea-Party bent, but that didn’t scare off Romney or Sal Pace or Rick Santorum, and others who’ve been on Cari and Rob Show recently.

You wonder where that puts Scott Tipton.

I asked Douglas if he’d tried to land Tipton lately.

We’re very pleased that Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Michael Reagan, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Doug Lamborn, Sal Pace and many others are coming on our program to speak to our audience about the current campaigns and issues that are important to our audience. From the start, our goal has been to provide a venue for Coloradoans and others to have their voices heard and to hear from elected representatives and others who impact public policy.

To that end, we always welcome elected representatives and legitimate candidates on our program.

While we have not extended an invitation to Congressman Tipton recently, he is always welcome on our program and we expect he’ll want to speak with our audience between now and the time when he must stand before the voters in his district. Given Congressman Tipton’s interaction with our audience as both a candidate and as a elected representative over the last several years, we assume he knows he has a standing invitation from our program.

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog

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.

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 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