Musgrave Drains Campaign Funds to Train Anti-Choice Activists


The
national antiabortion group, Susan B. Anthony List, is the recipient of
a cool 50 grand courtesy of defeated U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s
campaign fund. The Fort Morgan conservative, who now works for the
List’s Votes Have Consequences
outreach effort, will fund the "Young Leaders" training program, an
initiative of the group’s separate tax-exempt charitable education
foundation.

That organizational do-si-do may allow Musgrave to effectively skirt
a federal campaign finance rule that prohibits candidates from donating
unused war chests to their employers.

Musgrave said of the contribution that will drain her federal campaign fund:

As technology advances and sonograms continue to offer
compelling visual evidence of the humanity of unborn children, we’re
finding that the younger generation is more pro-life. I’m confident the
Susan B. Anthony List Education Fund will effectively marshal the
energy and enthusiasm found among young pro-lifers to be a voice for
women and the unborn for years to come.

One of those young women leaders could be Kristi Burton, the
21-year-old Peyton resident who was the figurehead behind Amendment 48,
the so-called personhood law that attempted to confer constitutional
rights on fertilized eggs. Musgrave endorsed the antiabortion and anti-contraception state ballot measure that went down in flames by a three-to-one margin. Burton has since moved on to national prominence with absolutist antiabortion groups the American Life League and American Right to Life.

The congresswoman’s three month tenure with Votes Have Consequences
following her own bruising electoral loss has also not gone unnoticed.

Musgrave’s role is to raise funds to target members of Congress in
the 2010 election cycle who support abortion rights. On a March 12
press call announcing the initiative, she vowed to use the same
scorched-earth tactics employed against her that resulted in Betsy
Markey’s landslide 2008 victory.

Last month, a Musgrave called out members of Congress in a fiery fund raising letter
to "publicly defend socialism, authoritarian gun-grabbing, gay
marriage, infanticide and everything else they vote for in Washington
…"

Neither Votes Have Consequences or the Susan B. Anthony List will
confirm whether Markey, who supports abortion rights, will be targeted
by the group for defeat in 2010.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • hatmaker510

    Musgrave is unbelievable! I followed the links in the article and came to this copy of Musgrave’s letter seeking funds for her "revenge". (It sure sounds like that!)

    Thanks, Ms. Norris, for the enlightening article.

    http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/musgrave-vhc-letter.pdf

    ( If this link is already posted, forgive the redundancy. I’m surprised people still amaze me.)

    Melissa

    • wendy-norris

      The Votes Have Consequences letter was stunningly paranoid and bitter.

       

      It seems like she could use some kindness in her life. Lugging around all that anger is poisonous. 

  • marysia

    Susan B. Anthony did oppose abortion, as prenatal lifetaking, too. I have researched this matter and found a lot of evidence on this point.

    But I wonder what she would think of this group using her name.

    We can’t know today. But she was probably a lesbian, had women friends who openly lived in same-sex domestic partnerships, as many early feminists did, and was not exactly thrilled with “traditional family values.”

    She supported family planning and advocated for nonviolent, egalitarian relationships between men and women. That is, she supported measures that helped to reduce abortion.

    Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

  • invalid-0

    If there was no such thing as birth control or if it was difficult to obtain the “anti choice” label might made sense. Certainly it would be appropriate if we were living in a “Handmaiden” type environment but we don’t so it isn’t. For the same reason of course neither is “pro choice” because it implys that choice doesn’t come in to play until pregnancy has been confirmed; and if I’m not mistaken I remember always having some (well actually total) say over that. If you were serious about this common ground thing you’d drop the “anti choice” label and stick with “anti abortion”. Then you’d challenge yourselves by communicating with organizations such as “Feminists for Life” who would offer logical, well thought out arguments with a strictly secular point of view. I’m sure plenty of people at RHRealitycheck have worked on political campaigns and they know as well as any one else that candidates who lose or drop out of campaigns often channel the money to organizations that have helped them.

  • invalid-0

    If you were serious about this common ground thing you’d drop the “anti choice” label and stick with “anti abortion”.

    The reason we use the term “anti-choice” is because it entails giving a pregnant woman no option other than to carry the pregnancy to term. We don’t say “anti-abortion” because that would imply that we are “pro-abortion,” when in fact we do not promote the choice of abortion. (What we promote is having the full range of options available, including abortion.)

  • invalid-0

    You people want it both ways. Let’s put this in terms a 5-year-old can understand. YOU CAN’T CONDEMN PEOPLE FOR NOT USING CONTRACEPTION IF YOU’RE AT THE SAME TIME DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO IT.