Reporters looking for another source to counter senatorial candidate Cory Gardner’s contention that “there is no federal personhood bill” can turn to gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, who cosponsored federal personhood legislation and acknowledges his own support for it.

And while he’s talking, Beauprez should explain what he thinks his federal personhood bill would do.

Both Gardner and Beauprez do not favor state personhood amendments, even though both candidates cosponsored federal personhood legislation, which would expand the definition of a person in the U.S. Constitution to include the unborn, beginning at the zygote or fertilized egg stage, and thereby banning all abortion and common forms of birth control.

Gardner’s bill is called the 2013 Life at Conception Act. Beauprez’s is the 2006 Right to Life Act. The two bills are essentially the same.

But unlike Gardner, Beauprez thinks federal personhood legislation exists, and his problem, he says, is with state personhood amendments, not the federal bill.

In March, 9News political reporter Brandon Rittiman clarified a previous 9News piece, which quoted Beauprez as saying he never supported personhood.

Rittiman asked Beauprez about his support of the Right To Life Act, a federal personhood bill, and Rittiman reported:

Rittiman: “Beauprez has certainly supported the concept of personhood in the form of federal legislation. He says his answer to 9NEWS was meant to convey that he has not supported it at the state level.”

Close Beauprez observers will note that the former congressman is careful, when he talks about his opposition to “personhood,” to focus on the state amendments, while staying silent on federal personhood legislation.

Look, for example, at what Beauprez said in Thursday’s debate in Pueblo:

Beauprez: “I’m opposed to the personhood amendment. I’ll tell you what I’m in favor of.  I’m in favor of innocent lives.”

In coverage of the debate, The Denver Post’s Joey Bunch did the right thing journalistically and informed readers of Beauprez’s support of the 2006 federal personhood bill.

Beauprez’s reference to “personhood amendment” Thursday comports with what he told Rittiman back in June:

Beauprez: “The personhood amendment, and that’s where we have to draw the line, the personhood amendment might have identified the right issue but the very wrong solution.”

Bottom line for reporters: Beauprez hasn’t explained why he still supports federal personhood legislation, even though he’s not on board with state personhood efforts. I’m curious to know what Beauprez thinks the federal personhood bill he co-sponsored would do, if passed, and why he backs it over state personhood.

Beauprez’s thoughts on why Gardner thinks “there is no federal personhood bill” would be of interest to those of us trying to understand Gardner’s mysterious personhood hypocrisy.

Mike Coffman has voted multiple times to defund Planned Parenthood, but that didn’t stop him from featuring the logo of Planned Parenthood Action Fund in an ad released last week.

The ad states that “Coffman was praised for protecting women from violence.” Then the words “Coffman ‘showed courage'” are displayed on the screen next to the PPAF logo.

The ad concludes with praise from the Colorado Springs Gazette, calling him “practical” and “selfless.”

Last year, Planned Parenthood praised 33 Republicans, including Coffman, for “showing courage” by voting for the Violence Against Women Act, which authorized funds to respond to domestic violence, sexual assault, and other violent acts against women.

“One vote on record supporting women does not make him a candidate we believe supports women’s health,” said Cathy Alderman, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado, in a statement. He has a consistent record of voting against women’s access to reproductive health care services.

“In fact, Mr. Coffman voted to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides many important health services to Colorado women, including birth control, family planning services, life-saving cancer screenings and safe abortion services. This advertisement is a smokescreen for Mr. Coffman to hide his continual failure to be an advocate for Colorado women.”

In his last vote against Planned Parenthood, in 2011, Coffman joined House Republicans in supporting Resolution 36 to the federal budget bill, stating that funding in the legislation “may be made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or any affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc.”

Coffman has a long anti-choice record, as a consistent supporter of state personhood amendments, which would ban all abortion, even for rape, as well as common forms of birth control. A Personhood USA leader once called him a “statesman” for not abandoning personhood.

Once, after an apparent misstatement on the radio, Coffman wrote a letter to radio-host Dan Caplis asking Caplis to claify on air that Coffman did not favor allowing abortion for rape and incest.

In March of this year, facing a tough challenge by pro-choice Democrat Andrew Romanoff, Coffman withdrew his support for state personhood amendments, and he announced he’d allow a raped woman to have the option of abortion.

Coffman’s office did not return a phone call seeking comment.

In an interview on KOA 850-AM Tuesday, gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez sharply criticized Jeffco students and teachers who’ve been protesting against a proposed curriculum review, saying the conflict is “really” about merit pay, not the curriculum.

Asked what message he has for “students, parents, teachers, and administrators in the Jefferson County school district,” Beauprez said, “Get back to the task at hand, and that’s instructing the kids.”

“This [protest] supposedly was about curriculum,” Beauprez told KOA, touching on the topic of tonight’s meeting of the Jefferson County School Board, “But I think it’s a long ways removed from curriculum. I think it’s really just a manifestation of the ongoing battle between the school board and the teachers’ union over pay, and in this case, merit pay. The curriculum is a very secondary issue.”

In particular, Beauprez implied that Jeffco students were being manipulated by teachers, calling the student actions a “teacher-encouraged protest.”

Asked what role the governor should play in the dispute, Beauprez aligned himself with the Jeffco Schools’ Superintendent, and he sounded (see below) as if he believes gubernatorial intervention would be justified if the conflict continues.

Beauprez said it’s now “very close to that moment in time when the legitimate requests and needs of the parents and the students are not being met, and teachers are not meeting their contractual obligation to be in that classroom teaching kids.”

The Colorado Indpendent’s Tessa Cheek reported Tuesday that Jeffco parents were upset by simlar, but less strident, comments Beauprez made in a recent speech. Cheek reported:

“What we’ve got going on in JeffCo right now is a bit of a complicated situation,” Beauprez said in a forum at Metro State college on Friday.

“I think the school board, an elected school board, they have a proxy from the citizens of Jefferson County to review that curriculum and to opine about that curriculum,” he continued. “And the remedy — if the citizens, the voters, decide that the school board has made a mistake — the remedy comes pretty quickly, in the next election. That’s the way I think it should work.”

The comment hit a nerve for Shawna Fritzler. She’s a registered Republican with a nine-year-old daughter who attends a JeffCo public school. She’s also the president of her school’s Parent Teacher Association and a citizen-chair of the JeffCo public school’s planning and advisory council. She said she is frustrated to see a top-of-the-ticket politician weigh in during an election year without enough context.

“Bob Beauprez says to take it to the ballot box,” she said. “You want me to wait three more years of my nine-year old’s education? My daughter has to wait for an election? That’s asinine.”

On KNUS radio this morning, conservative Dan Caplis said he believes “all of this theater is geared to the launch of a recall election” of the Jefferson County School Board.

Here is a transcript of Bob Beauprez’s remarks on KOA 850-AM’s Colorado Afternoon News, Sept. 30, 2014

MALE ANNOUNCER/INTERVIEWER: […] evaluations and talk about creating a committee to review the AP History course. Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bob Beauprez joining Colorado’s Afternoon News to talk about the trouble in Jefferson County.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Thanks for joining us, sir. What message do you have to parents, students, teachers, and administrators in the Jefferson County school district? [static, pause, technical difficulties] We seem to be having a problem with getting candidate Bob Beauprez on. We’re a little bit of delay difficulty, here. Some Technical issues here, on Colorado’s Afternoon News, at 5:22

MALE ANNOUNCER/INTERVIEWER: This is an important — you know, an important subject for folks out there in Jefferson County.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Mm-hmm.

MALE ANNOUNCER/INTERVIEWER: Uh, the school board making some big decision. Of course, they’re going to be talking about this again on Thursday night.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Okay, I think we have him now, and I’ll repeat my message, just in case you didn’t hear me. What message do you have to students, parents, teachers, and administrators in the Jefferson County school district, sir?

BOB BEAUPREZ: Well, get back to the task at hand, and that’s instructing the kids. And that’s what people pay their taxes for. That’s what parents expect. That’s what children deserve. And frankly, that’s what, I know, that teachers took the job for. They want [to teach] children, or else they wouldn’t be there. This has been an on-going dispute, I think, between the teachers’ union and the school board over the merit pay schedule and particularly the pay as it relates to teachers that might find — might be found not quite measuring up to the standards that the school board expects them to achieve. Now, let me be clear. I’d like not to have to take sides on this one, but I do believe that the school board — an elected school board, any elected school board — they have a proxy from the voters and particularly the parents who send them there, to make sure that they’re speaking out and exercising judgment on their behalf. And that would include, from time to time, reviewing curriculum. This supposedly was about curriculum. But I think it’s a long ways removed from curriculum. I think it’s really just a manifestation of the ongoing battle between the school board and the teachers’ union over pay, and in this case, merit pay. The curriculum is a very secondary issue. When it crosses the line, is when instruction of children –uh, the students– starts being impacted, and clearly it is. You know, when you’ve got to close the high schools because of a supposed sick-out — we all get that joke — there’s something seriously wrong.

MALE ANNOUNCER/INTERVIEWER: So what role, if any, does the governor have in a situation like this?

BOB BEAUPREZ: Well, I’d like to leave it to local control as long as you possibly can. Uh, but we’re right up against now that the counting of students for the sake of reimbursing on a per capita basis, the amount of money that the state reimburses –sends back — to the school districts to fund education. That’s always an issue, and there never seems to be enough. But if we’ve got a sick-out, if we’ve got schools closed because teachers don’t show up, or we’ve got a whole lot of students missing because they’ve decided to walk out and join in the teacher-encouraged protest, that’s a whole different matter. So, at some point, I don’t know where that line is– I think a governor would know it when he sees it, but you’re starting to get, in my opinion, very close to that moment in time when the legitimate requests –needs–of the parents and the students are not being met, and teachers are not meeting their contractual obligation to be in that classroom teaching kids.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Thank you for your time, sir. That’s Bob Beauprez, candidate for governor. As for the count day tomorrow, across the state, the state department of education’s website show that there is a count day window that extends from 5 days before count day to 5 days after count day.

MALE ANNOUNCER/INTERVIEWER: And it’s important, because each student brings with them about seven thousand dollars. And so, [if] you lose the count — maybe even ten kids — you’re looking at a lot of money, there.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Yeah. Yeah. […]

Listen to Beauprez’s remarks from the KOA interview: 

 

If you’ve been following my blog, you know that I can’t shake this question out of my head. Why did senatorial candidate Cory Gardner drop the state personhood amendments but remain a co-sponsor of the federal personhood bill?

It would have been so easy for Gardner to uncosponsor the federal personhood bill. He’s even uncosponsored at least one bill before (not a personhood bill but still, an real-life bill!

Instead, he’s left saying, “There is no federal personhood bill,” and getting beat up for it by reporters (here and here) and Democrats alike. And rightfully so.

After months of wasteful thought, I offer you my best shot at explaining Gardner’s mysterious personhood hypocisy, as posted on The Denver Post’s website:

In contrast to state personhood ballot initiatives, the path to legislating personhood via re-defining “person” in the U.S. Constitution, like what’s mandated by the Life at Conception Act, is embraced by the national Republican Party platform. Also, 153 members of Congress, (132 in the House and 21 in the Senate) co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, along with Gardner. The Senate sponsor of the bill is Rand Paul, widely considered a leading GOP presidential contender.

If Gardner declared the federal personhood bill a well-intentioned mistake, like he did Colorado’s personhood amendments, he’d have abandoned the all those Members of Congress. He’d also be alienating powerful anti-abortion organizations and countless GOP activists. There’s a national movement built around the concept of enacting personhood via constitutional amendment. Not so much with state-based personhood initiatives.

It would be infinitely messier, politically, for Gardner to break ranks with backers of the federal personhood bill than from local pastors and churchgoers who’ve pushed Colorado’s personhood amendments and represent the ragged fringe of the national anti-abortion movement. And by parting ways with personhood in Colorado, Gardner could still try to polish his appeal to women, who will likely decide November’s election, while remaining friendly with the more powerful anti-abortion crowd. A perfect both-ways strategy.

All that’s speculation, I know, but what else can you do when Gardner’s own answer defies the facts?

Now the question is, will this work? Can Gardner win by repeating there-is-no-federal-personhood-bill? Or will a new crop of questions that should be asked by reporters force him articulate an actual factual explanation?

Fox 31 Denver’s Eli Stokols repeatedly tried to convince senatorial candidate Cory Gardner last week that there is such a thing as a federal personhood bill, and Gardner is a co-sponsor of it.

In so doing, Stokols cited Factcheck.org, which reported not only that the bill exists but that the Gardner campaign said Gardner signed it in an effort to ban abortion. Stokols also cited co-sponsors of the bill, who say it’s personhood legislation.

This didn’t dent Gardner, who continued, parrot-like, to say “There is no persnhood bill.”

Reporters going down this rabbit hole with Gardner in the future might like to know more details on what the Life at Conception Act would do, in addition to banning common forms of birth control, like Plan B and IUDs, if passed.

So I asked Lynn Paltrow, an accomplished attorney and executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what she thought the Life at Conception Act would do. She confirmed that the bill is, in fact, a “personhood” bill.

“If it passed, it would be a federal law that makes the 14th Amendment applicable to the unborn,” Paltrow said.

“It arguably would create obligations on the federal government to protect equally the unborn by doing such things as outlawing abortion, even for rape and incest, outlawing in vitro fertilization, outlawing participation of pregnant women in drug trials that might be helpful to them but could create risks for the unborn,” said Paltrow, an attorney. “The only thing it does not permit is arresting women if there’s a death of an unborn child. But there is no prohibition against prosecuting doctors for murder—and there’s no prohibition against prosecuting pregnant women for other crimes.”

Paltrow continued: “For example, even if a woman seeks to maintain her pregnancy, a personhood law could be used to justify prosecuting a pregnant woman for risk of harm. The proposed law would do nothing to protect women from investigation, arrest, and prosecution under all the other mechanisms by which women are being arrested.”

In a post on RhRealityCheck.org today, I reported that a mailer produced by senatorial candidate Cory Gardner refers to the “American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists” as a backer of his proposal to sell contraception over-the-counter. But this group apparently does not exist.

An organization with a similar name, which Gardner has cited previously, doesn’t support Gardner’s proposal.

The advertisement states:

Supported by the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Cory’s proposal would make oral contraception: Less expensive — about the price of Aspirin; More convenient — helping women obtain The Pill on their own schedule without an appointment; More accessible — ensures women in underserved urban and rural areas have greater ability to obtain The Pill. [BigMedia emphasis]

The RH Reality Check piece states:

A Google search for the “American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists” returns references to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

After seeing the Gardner mailer, Kate Connors, ACOG Director of Media Relations, told RH Reality Check via email, “For all I know, there is an AAOG out there, somewhere, but it has certainly never come to my attention. I dare say that the mailer’s reference to it is an error.”

Connors said that it was also an “error” for Gardner to suggest that “we have supported his proposal.”

A September 9 ACOG statement emphasizes over-the-counter sale of contraception is a long-term goal, not a proposal it supports currently.

Politifact.com, in a September 8 analysis, judged Gardner’s claim about the pill being cheaper if sold over-the-counter as “mostly false,” in light of various uncertainties as well as the fact that, under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies cannot charge policy holders a co-pay for preventive health care, including contraception. So, for most women, contraception is currently free.

Fox 31 political reporter Eli Stokols tried hard last week to extract an explanation from senatorial candidate Cory Gardner for his decision to withdraw from “personhood” legislation at the state level but, at the same time, to remain a co-sponsor of a federal personhood bill, which would ban all abortion, even for rape, and some forms of birth control.

So what else could a reporter ask Gardner at this point?

We know he thinks there’s “no federal personhood bill,” because he said it four times to Stokols and once previously to 9News political reporter Brandon Rittiman.

So what does Gardner think the bill aims to do? If it’s not personhood, what is it?

Gardner discussed this question at least twice: Factcheck.org reported last month that “Gardner’s campaign says he backed the [state and federal] proposals as a means to ban abortion, not contraception.”

Later, contradicting this, Gardner told Rittiman that the “[Life at Conception Act] says life begins at conception.” Gardner’s spokespeople have said the same thing, saying it won’t ban contraception, but they did not mention abortion.

Abortion

Expanding on Factcheck.org’s article, reporters should discuss with Gardner the ramifications of his co-sponsorship of a personhood-style abortion ban. All abortion, even for rape and incest, would be banned. Thus, under the Life at Conception Act, a teenager raped by her father would not have the option of getting an abortion.

Contraception

Gardner has said the Life at Conception Act doesn’t ban contraception. In fact, he told Stokols, “I do not support legislation that would ban birth control. That’s crazy! I would not support that.”

Gardner did not waiver or offer further explanation, even after Stokols told him directly about one of  Factcheck.org’s conclusions: “Gardner says he has changed his mind and no longer supports the Colorado initiative, precisely because it could ban common forms of birth control. But he still backs a federal personhood bill, which contains the same language that would make a ban of some contraception a possibility.”

Reporters who question Gardner should avoid asking him about his position on “contraception” or “birth control” generally, because these words means different things to different people, as you can read here.

Instead, the question is, Does Gardner support specific types of contraception, like Plan B and IUDs. Plan B and IUDs could be banned under the Life at Conception Act because they threaten or destroy fertilized eggs (zygotes), which would gain full legal rights, the same ones you and I have, if the federal personhood bill became law.

In vitro fertilization

Factcheck.org pointed out that personhood measures, like the federal personhood bill, threaten “in vitro fertilization, which often involve creating more than one embryo in an effort to help a woman conceive — the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has been against personhood initiatives.” What’s Gardner’s stance on this issue, given his backing of the Life at Conception Act.

Plenty to ask.

So Stokols’ intense interview with Gardner leaves plenty of questions unanswered, and they go beyond the ones from Stokols that Gardner dodged or refused to answer factually.

In an explosive interview broadcast Sunday, Republican senatorial candidate Cory Gardner told Fox 31 Denver’s Eli Stokols four times that a federal “personhood” bill does not exist, even though Gardner cosponsored such a bill just last year.

But Stokols repeatedly challenged Gardner, first saying, “Cory, the people who wrote that bill, Congressmen Duncan Hunter of California, Paul Broun of Georgia, they say-Personhood USA says-that that is what the Life at Conception Act is.”

Gardner tried to change the topic, but Stokols would have none of it, interrupting Gardner and saying, “The facts are–”

Gardner quickly interrupted Stokols, and said, “No, the facts are, Eli, that there is no federal personhood bill. There is no federal personhood bill. I think what you’re seeing, Eli, is an effort by Sen. Udall to run away from his record on energy, to run away from his failed record on the economy. Here is a man–”

Stokols told Gardner he’d “grill” Udall next week on his show, but for now, he wanted to know about the federal personhood bill, which aims to ban abortion, even for rape, and some forms of birth control.

“The bill that your name is on defines personhood as beginning at the moment of fertilization,” Stokols told Gardner. “Many think it has the potential to ban a number of forms of birth control. Factcheck.org says that you still support a federal bill that would prompt the same concerns over birth control as the state measure that you reject on the same grounds.”

“I do not support legislation that would ban birth control. That’s crazy! I would not support that. I do not support efforts that would ban birth control… Mark Udall is running away from his record and trying to distract the voters with things he would like people believe that simply aren’t true.”

“He’s not the only one who sees the Life at Conception Act as a personhood bill,” Stokols told Gardner. “The sponsors do. Personhood USA does. ..You are sitting here telling me that a bill that everyone says is basically a personhood bill at the federal level, you’re telling me it’s not?”

Sparks flew a while longer, but Gardner got the final utterance before a commercial break.

“There is no federal personhood bill,” Gardner said, never saying what he thinks Life at Conception Act actually is.

Fox 31 Denver is teasing interview with Cory Gardner to be broadcast 9 a.m. Sunday on reporter Eli Stokols’ “#COPolitics from the Source.”

Here’s the clip.

Judging from the short exchange between Gardner and Stokols broadcast by Fox 31 last night, it appears Stokols pressed Gardner for a factual explanation from Gardner about why he withdrew his endorsement from personhood amendments at the state level but continues to support federal personhood legislation, which would abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

Stokols: You don’t support the personhood amendment at the state level anymore. Why keep your name on that Life At Conception Act at the federal level?

Gardner: There is no such thing as the federal personhood bill.

Stokols: Cory, the people who wrote that bill, Congressmen Duncan Hunter of California, Paul Broun of Georgia, they say–Personhood USA says–that that is what the Life at Conception Act is.

Gardner: When I announced for the Senate, that’s when this outcry started from the Senate campaign of Senator Udall.  That’s what they are tyring to do. This is all politics. It’s unfortunate that they can’t focus on–

Stokols: But the facts are —

Gardner: No, the facts are, Eli, that there is no federal personhood bill. There is no federal personhood bill.

I’m looking forward to seeing the entire interview, which will air on Fox 31 Sunday morning at 9 a.m.

In his first response to Making Colorado Great’s ad, now airing on Colorado TV, gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez said if the ad were true, “somebody would have probably prosecuted me and put me behind bars.”

Appearing this morning on KNUS 710-AM radio’s Dan Caplis show, Beauprez said:

Beauprez: “Dan, you’re a lawyer, you understand this. The most recent [ad] essentially accuses me of bank fraud. That’s a very, very serious violation. If there was a shred of truth to it, there would be an FDIC investigation. Somebody would have probably prosecuted and put me behind bars, if there was any truth to it, whatsoever. Of course, there is none. That doesn’t matter to Michael Huttner who put the ad together, and the Democratic Governors’ Association, who’s paying for it. You know, it’s just implications, but I think people are seeing it as just grossly over the top, and really a pretty sad indictment on the desperation of John Hickenlooper.”

Caplis told Beaprez that he hopes Gov. John Hickenlooper will be blamed for the ad, even though the ad was produced by Making Colorado Great, which is by law separated from the governor.

Beauprez: “Well, I hope so, too. I mean, the stuff that they’re implying, directly accusing me of in the ad is just totally false. [It] couldn’t happen, frankly, in a bank sale that is so scrutinized by regulators, multiple exams, total disclosure. I mean, it’s absolutely ludicrous, the claims that — and I wasn’t even in the bank! I was in a management role in the bank, and still they say this. Yeah, anywhere else in the real world, somebody would be answering to the lies that they perpetrated. This is the crazy world of politics.”

Listen to Beauprez’s thoughts on Making Colorado Great’s ad