Abortion rights organizations say the Denver Post‘s endorsement of senatorial candidate Cory Gardner contradicts the paper’s long-held editorial stance on choice, among other things.
A leading online streaming-video service has rejected an advertisement that features a rape victim who opposes Colorado’s “personhood” amendment, because the issue of abortion is too “controversial.” But Hulu runs ads on other political issues.
Opponents of Colorado’s “personhood” amendment have devised an online campaign to urge women nationally to stand with them to defeat the measure. Otherwise, they warn, the next “personhood” initiative might be in your town.
Colorado Republican senatorial candidate Cory Gardner has dropped support of state “personhood” amendments because he didn’t know they would have banned some forms of birth control. But an anti-choice group now says Gardner was briefed on the amendments and understood them.
Questioned by debate moderators, Rep. Cory Gardner falsely stated that federal “personhood” legislation is “simply a statement of belief,” and Sen. Mark Udall said he wouldn’t ban later abortions.
A measure on the Colorado ballot has been compared to “fetal homicide” laws in dozens of states, but the measure is more far-reaching, and could subject pregnant women to prosecution for everything from choosing abortion to driving without wearing a seat belt.
Amendment 67 is not a law designed to protect pregnant women; rather, it would give law enforcement officials grounds to potentially imprison mothers.
Rachel Maddow discusses Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez’s opposition to intrauterine devices (IUDs), which he falsely believes are abortifacients. Read more about Beauprez’s problem with IUDs from Jason Salzman. [via MSNBC]
Colorado gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, who has long opposed reproductive rights, said again Thursday that he’s against Colorado’s “personhood” amendments, but he was a co-sponsor in 2005 of federal “personhood” legislation, which he continues to support.
Monday’s Supreme Court order denying review of seven same-sex marriage cases may not be as emotionally satisfying as a pro-equality ruling, but it has a similar effect nonetheless.