home

Colorado's Purple Status Gets a New Wrinkle

Colorado will be a hotly contested race in November. It's considered a toss-up, a red state that has trended bluer in recent years, although Bush won it in 2000 and 2004. How will this affect voter turnout, and which way?

In November, Coloradans will be asked whether they favor amending the state constitution to include a provision that defines a "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization."
Colorado for Equal Rights, the grassroots group seeking a measure to extend constitutional protections to the earliest individuals, fertilized eggs, succeeded in submitting more than enough valid voter signatures, the secretary of state said Thursday morning.
Not surprisingly, the group believes this amendment could result in legislation reversing Roe v. Wade:

[More...]

The amendment would not make abortion illegal, but supporters and opponents alike believe it could lay the legal framework to legislate against abortion. Opponents, including a broad coalition called "Protect Families, Protect Choices," say the amendment, which it called "vague and deceptive," could encroach on everything from abortion rights to contraception and in vitro fertilization.

Will it bring out the radical right who might otherwise not vote since they don't think McCain is conservative enough, boosting his chances since once at the voting booth, they'll vote for him over the Democrat, or will it bring out more of the pro-choice voters who are likely to vote for the Democratic nominee?

< Harvey Korman, RIP | WaPo Reporter: No McCain -Clinton Polling Because Nobody Cares >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It does not seem that this would be likely to (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:48:48 PM EST
    pass...and I think it would be possible for Hillary to win over CO.

    The problem also is we don't (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:30 PM EST
    know Obama's position. He's been all over the place on this subject.

    Parent
    We will just have to wing it since we never (none / 0) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:05:57 PM EST
    know obama's stand on anything...depends what time of the day it is :)

    Parent
    I fully expect this to be a close race. (none / 0) (#35)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:35:56 PM EST
    This could pass.

    Jeralyn likely knows more about Colorado than I do. But it could pass. And it could bring out a lot of voters.

    Parent

    NO Chance (none / 0) (#50)
    by dissenter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:26:58 AM EST
    that amendment passes. CO is pro choice state - polls show that like 70% of the people support abortion rights. Plus, I've seen numerous letters to the editor in the Denver Post from pro lifers who don't agree with the amendment. It will bring out both sides. It is a wash.

    I can vote no on the amendment and yes on McCain. I don't think it impacts the presidential vote.

    Parent

    Dissenter (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:07 AM EST
    Are you in Afghanistan? When are you going to write us a diary?

    Parent
    Yes Back in the Stan (none / 0) (#58)
    by dissenter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:07:44 AM EST
    Sorry, I've been slammed and too tired to think coherently. I will write one next week. Promise.

    Parent
    Isn't that the kind of issue that brings the (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:07 PM EST
    Republicans out enmasse?


    not really.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:37 PM EST
    because all it does it define something...it doesn't exact consequences for sin, which is what drive turnout among the Xtian right.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:19:49 PM EST
    This one strikes me as so extreme that it may well bring out our side more than theirs.

    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#37)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:36:50 PM EST
    This is the kind of thing that brings people out to vote.

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:39:02 PM EST
    Did you think I was referring to something other than people?

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#40)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:41:40 PM EST
    I do think this can bring people out to vote for it. It's the kind of thing that gets floated around right-wing e-mail lists everywhere.

    Maybe it can't pass, but it could bring people who may not be willing to vote for McCain without a push to the polls.

    I don't think it's a good idea to underestimate this kind of thing.

    Parent

    To be clear (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:49:28 PM EST
    I'm not underestimating it.  I assume every crazy wingnut for miles around will show up to vote for it.  But I think it's extreme enough that it can be an even more potent recruiting tool for our side.

    Lots of moderate swing voters will object to this sort of extremism.  They're more likely to vote Democratic if they associate Democrats with the reasonable, non-extreme position.

    Parent

    It's not just the voters it brings out (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:27 AM EST
    It also brings out the money.  If Colorado is one of the few states with anything like this on its ballot, expect a lot of money pouring into the state from outside groups.

    When the MA legislature was considering amending its constitution to ban gay marriage, tons of money poured in from both sides.  And church groups from all over the country bussed in to oppose it.

    We know with Obama that more money <> win an election, but would more money help McCain?  More people?

    My impression (probably false) is that gay marriage has surpassed anti-abortion on the Christian right, so maybe the California ballot will siphon off some support.

    Can't help wonder how much support and $ will show up from all the Obama backers who've been trying to blackmail us with Roe v Wade.  Can't wait to find out.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:53 PM EST
    From the moment of FERTILIZATION?  Does that mean you have to get a death certificate if the zygote fails to implant?  These people are messed up.

    Every Sperm Is Sacred! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:51:43 PM EST
    Actually, I shouldn't joke. These people are bat$hit, no question.

    Parent
    Until it's born. Then it's on its own. That (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Teresa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:58:56 PM EST
    just kills me about the Republican Party.

    Parent
    we should all be glad (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:01:11 PM EST
    they are batsh!t crazy.  Just wait--one of them is going to get smart one day and get one of these bills through.

    The thing is, when a woman has her eggs extracted and fertilized, the doctors look in the petri dish, pick out the strongest ones that are likely to stick, then toss out the rest.  Used to be they'd go down the sink.  Now, they go into medical waste.

    Tell all those women spending tens of thousands of dollars to conceive that it's illegal and then they'll get upset.

    Maybe someone will ask Obama to explain what he meant at the faith forum by "the sanctity of sexuality" and "the left" not understanding abortion is a "wrenching moral choice."

    Parent

    that's not really a consideration... (none / 0) (#28)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:13:24 PM EST
    in purely political terms.

    You want to sink this amendment, the argument is simple.  

    Your daughter could be forced to carry the child of a rapist to term.

    and if you want to kill it GOP style, you'll show pictures of convicted black and latino rapists in the ad.  

    I guarantee you it won't pass.

    Parent

    You try and find someone to fund that ad (none / 0) (#38)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:37:50 PM EST
    This can pass.

    Parent
    No, because they're cool with frozen (none / 0) (#46)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:16:20 AM EST
    embryos, just not throwing them out.

    Well ok, not all of them are cool with frozen embryos, but it won't be in vitro won't be illegal.  (of course I haven't read the full law so could be way wrong).

    Parent

    Miscarriage = missing person report? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Knocienz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:56:20 PM EST
    I'm wondering what hapens when someone sues for custody of an unimplanted embryo at a fertility clinic with a best interest of the child claim.

    High level of ridiculousness involved here. I expect this would bring out more pro-choice and libertarians than conservatives.


    Parent

    Didn't Law & Order do an episode about that? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Rhouse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:09:20 PM EST
    Something like it (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Knocienz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:18:44 PM EST
    Something like wife #2 got 'custody' over wife #1's fertilized eggs and was going to implant them?

    I can see it now: Law and Order: Microscopic Victim's Unit


    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#33)
    by Rhouse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:31:10 PM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#48)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:10 AM EST
    There've been real cases over just this issue.  L&O, ripped from the headlines, as usual.

    Parent
    unnecessary amendment for gop (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:54:35 PM EST
    Not necessary at all for Sen McCain.

    Will it bring out the radical right who might otherwise not vote since they don't think McCain is conservative enough

    The GOP will flock to vote against Obama, if he's the nominee.  They may not like McCain, but they'll detest Obama.

    detest Obama? (none / 0) (#15)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:58:33 PM EST
    well, they won't know where the h-e-double hockey sticks he stands on the issue.  Hard to be All Things to All People on something like this, you know?  And dribble about Hope and Change (even if said with a charming smile) won't be enough if they want to know his position on this legislation.

    Perhaps he'll say "Present" or hit the wrong button?

    Parent

    Wright, Ayers, (none / 0) (#25)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:09:01 PM EST
    plus the latest priest nutcase.  That should be enough to get the hard right up in arms, once the commercials play all over Christian radio.

    The religious right will not appreciate those lovely folk.


    Parent

    Masturbation illegal? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:04:22 PM EST
    Wolf Blitzer: "This is historical, folks!  Not since the early days of our government have we seen an almost 99% turn-out among men at the polls."

    hahahaha (none / 0) (#27)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:11:00 PM EST
    Didn't think of that.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by LoisInCo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:16:18 PM EST
    I guess I will be voting against this amendment as well as against Obama. It would be nice to be able to vote FOR something for once.

    Bye-bye Colorado (none / 0) (#1)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:45:31 PM EST
    n/t

    Where exactly are we going? n/t (none / 0) (#60)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:02:21 AM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:45:57 PM EST
    I actually expect that amendment to fail, and handily. 63% of voters in Colorado identify themselves as pro-choice.

    My feeling is that those people who would turn out just to vote for this would turn out to vote for President no matter what.

    PP vs Casey (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:56:13 PM EST
    got us into this mess. I think it was early nineties?  It rejected trimester demarcation as set up by Roe and instead adopted language about "viability."  So, what is viability?  Who gets to say?  HR 1833 (I won't name it because the name in and of itself is disgusting propaganda) blurred the line even more, and the right wing nuts knew exactly what they were doing.

    There was a huge, underground yet tightly coordinated campaign to persuade people to believe that women were getting these late term procedures willy-nilly, when in fact they represented less than one percent of the procedures and could only be legally performed after certain medical thresholds were met--threat to the life of the mother, etc.

    It was a PR campaign that passed the legislation against the procedure--not medical facts, not logic and certainly not the majority of Americans who think abortion should be safe and legal.  The procedure itself could apply to second trimester abortions if you read it with one eye closed.  Meanwhile, people sit on their hands, thinking their reproductive rights are secure.

    This is why it's so important to concentrate on state legislatures and vote down-ticket, pro-choice dem as often as possible.  These new anti-choice dems everyone is so excited about scare the sh!t out of me.

    Parent

    Similar thing in CA (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:01:00 PM EST
    My sister, living in Palo Alto, CA, tells me there are petitions being signed to get a referendum on the ballot this fall in CA declaring marriage to be a union between male and female.  She thinks the referendum will get on the ballot, but no one seems interested in it.  The mood of much of the U.S. seems to be somber and too concerned about the economy to get stirred up by right wing positions on values issues -- I hope.

    Parent
    Wedge issues (none / 0) (#34)
    by Newt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:31:18 PM EST
    We need to maintain women's right to choose by working state to state, but gay rights require a different strategy.  Given that gay marriage is such an effective wedge issue for the right wing, a federal approach to settle the issue once and for all is our best strategy.

    Trying to resolve the gay marriage/civil union inequities through each state will take years, which allows Republicans to continue to utilize their gay-baiting GOTV and fundraising techniques.  Federal policy has to be changed eventually, and gay families will continue to expect Congress to address it.  Remember, we didn't really have any divorce law to speak of until the 1950's or so when the Catholic Church's refusal to give divorces spurred Americans and Congress to go around the Church and create public policy (and court case law) to fulfill a public need for divorce.  The same thing has to happen with gay family law.  In addition,  the Republicans' claim that "activist judges" are doing the job of Congress is often based on judges interpreting civil rights law before legislatures get around to clarifying some of the stickier points.  It's time for a Democratic Congress to step up to the plate and make a stand for all Americans, so the courts don't have to address it in every state.  Whether we should give gays the right to marry or take the opposite approach, get the church out of civil marriage (changing heterosexual marriages to domestic partnerships) is still up for debate.  What the recent CA Supreme Court decision indicates is that the "separate but equal" civil unions offer won't cut it under the equal protections clause in state constitutions.

    If federal law mandated equal rights for all American families, and IRS, social security and health care rules are likewise fixed, gay marriage would be a less effective a wedge issue, and Democrats would win more elections on the real issues.  We shouldn't wait another ten or twenty years to tackle this issue in fear of Republicans saying "I told you so, those Democrats are always helping the gays, blah, blah, blah"  Right wingers are already effectively using this issue against us, and have for years.  We can do what's right by our gay citizens and pull the rug out from the fear-mongering fund raising and GOTV strategies at the same time.  We have to resolve this sooner or later, we've put children at risk with public policy that ignores their family status.  Why not bite the bullet and fix the problem at the national level, and in the process save ourselves from right wing ideologues elected by homophobia instead of their voting records.  Once this key issue is dealt with, we can more effectively proceed with the many domestic and international problems facing us, such as completing the withdrawal from Iraq and establishing affordable health care in this great country.


    Parent

    Tough issue... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:45:20 PM EST
    ...because no one seems willing to compromise.

     I would.  If it is just the name that matters to most voters, fine, call it civil unions.  

     But this is the defining cultural issue for voters, it seems, and the name is significant for both sides.

    Parent

    Most gays would be happy with equality (none / 0) (#57)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:27:05 AM EST
    regardless of whether it's called marriage or not.  The problem with civil unions is that is a separate but not equal institution, hence the recent CA Supreme Ct decision.  If you get health care for your civil union partner, you have to pay taxes on the cost of the healthcare.  You can't add your partner to the deed of your house without paying taxes on your equity.  You can't give your family your retirement package when you die, only a lump sum as beneficiaries, which they're taxed on.  Your civil union isn't recognized by the federal government or other states, for the most part.  

    What gays really need is equal rights to protect our families. If we can't be added to marriage law (and hence benefit from established court case law) then the opposite should happen - remove religious marriage from civil domestic relationships.  This would not be a "separate but unequal" civil union add-on, but instead, a complete revision of the law removing church and theology from domestic contracts.  It's already two distinct processes, the church wedding and the County contract or license.  Now we need to do an overhaul similar to what we had to do when the church wouldn't let people get divorced back in the 1950s and before.  Under the separation of church and state, we need to remove their version of marriage from our laws and replace it with what the state is truly vested in protecting, domestic relationships.  The conservative churches can't complain because we won't be adding gays to "their" marriage institution.  Let them keep marriage, but change the laws to reflect the modernization of domestic civil contracts.  In other words, rename heterosexual marriage to domestic relationship, make family law apply to all domestic relationships, and dump the word marriage from state and federal law.  

    As long as gays don't have equality under the law, we'll be pushing for it and the GOP will use it as a wedge issue.
    But if we take marriage out of straight civil unions, reword the federal and state laws referencing straight marriages as civil unions, give the word "marriage" back to the churches, and ensure gays are included in civil unions, we can move on to more pressing matters like how to get out of Iraq and recover our economy.

    The fact is, slaves weren't freed because of blacks protesting, and women didn't get the right to vote because they demanded it.  Men in the government wanted more voters, which was really the decisive factor in suffrage.  Society plays fair with the oppressed when the oppressing group makes the change.  We have to pull the rug from under the right wing's gay marriage wedge issue, and the only way that's going to happen is when straight people finally stand up and demand change.  So get on it buddy.


    Parent

    "laws" like these (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:46:23 PM EST
    are absolutely hideous.  There was talk of a similar one in GA, but the contraception angle got it shot down pretty quickly.

    Amendments take a lot more work.

    I know Colorado has been red in (none / 0) (#4)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:46:41 PM EST
    years gone by, but would an amendment like this one be likely to pass? If so, could a presidential candidate help to reverse it or push it one way or another?

    Let's see. Young women don't (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:07 PM EST
    care about Roe v. Wade, take it for granted.  Many Clinton supporters vehemently reject any mention of SCOTUS nominations as a reason to vote for Obama if he is the nominee (SGBTRv.W).  

    But, that is really poorly-written ballot language.  Did the CO AG vett it?

    What makes you say that? (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    I think young women care about Roe.  We just think Obama is pro-choice, because he is.  However, a lot of people here will take him to task because he called it a difficult moral issue or something like that.  This is something we can also agree with.  For example, while I wouldn't personally have an abortian (for moral reasons), I don't think we should legislate a woman's body and I think it is a choice every woman has to make for themselves.  However, I can see that Obama uses nuanced language to get elected (I have no problem with politicians acting like politicians).  It is clear (to me) where he stands on this issue.

    However, to suggest that young women don't care about Roe (I am assuming you say this is because they voted for Obama... otherwise please explain) is 100% false.

    Finally, with regards to Colorado, I think people are sick of social issues as a way to drum up support for the right.  They realized after 2004 what else they were buying with it.  If they are true "Christians" they will have more of a problem with torture and poverty.

    Parent

    You misunderstand (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    The argument is that many young people take Roe for granted because they have never actually experienced a regime where abortion is illegal.

    The problem with Obama's statements on abortion is not that he calls it a difficult moral choice (although I'd imagine that sounds patronizing to some ears) but that he uses that language to set himself apart from unnamed "other" Democrats who supposedly don't get that it's a difficult moral choice.

    The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it.

    Similar to Obama's comments about the left's relationship with religion, he seems to reinforce certain canards about liberals as a way of distinguishing himself from those "other" liberals.  It may help him get elected, but it strikes us as detrimental to the long-term progressive cause to say "Yeah, liberals are sorta hostile to religion, but I'm not one of the hostile ones!"

    Parent

    I am troubled by Obama's initial (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    intention to vote to confirm the Roberts nomination. I am troubled by Obama's "present" votes in the IL Senate.  I think ballot initiatives in 2003 Nov. GE blindsided the Dems. and may do so again.  Example:  CA may have a proposition on the ballot amended the CA Constitution to limit marriage to "between a man and a woman."

    Parent
    uh oh (none / 0) (#8)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:12 PM EST
    if Obama's the Nominee he's going to have to actually take a stand on something!

    Not easy to wishy-washy-waffle on something like this when it's on the ballot as well and voters are demanding to know where you stand.  ("Present" doesn't count)

    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:04:39 PM EST
    if one of the embryos is accused of selling crack cocaine, you can bet Jeralyn will ensure it receives the full panoply of constitutional rights!

    I am LOLing (none / 0) (#23)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:07:07 PM EST
    As I wrote in the linked post (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:25:25 PM EST
    I generally constitutional amendments.

    I'm generally opposed to all proposals to amend the Constitution. It is not a "rough draft" to be edited at the whim of political might. It's the job of the legislature to make new laws. This is nothing but an attempt to make an end run around that process.

    Here's what I had to say about the Victim's Rights Amendment. More here and here.

    Same for an amendment to ban gay marriage.

    My feeling... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:36:32 PM EST
    ...is that lawyers and those trained in the law are very, very apprehensive about these amendments.

     I regularly vote against amendments I would support if they were statutes.  CA has gone insane over initiatives. No thank you.

    Parent

    Dare Ya (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ginny in CO on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:21 AM EST
    to check him out.

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

    Solidly prochoice. And plenty of other very good things:

    Reducing Health Risks Due to Mercury Pollution:
    More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood and more than 630,000 newborns are born every year at risk. The EPA estimates that every year, more than one child in six could be at risk for developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb. Since the primary sources of mercury in fish are power plant emissions that contaminate our water, regulation of utility emissions is essential to protecting the health of our children. Barack Obama introduced two pieces of legislation to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.

    The legal stupidity of the initiative (on top of the microscopic size) is that the state essentially has to grant citizenship at conception. Last I checked, only Israel does that.

    Where in the Bible would there be support for this?  Until genetics became a science, we thought the man's ejaculate carried the 'seed'. Adam didn't become human until God blew into his nostrils.

    I am SOO peeved these idiots got the sigs for the initiative - not surprised. Unfortunately, with Colorado Springs the mecca of the religious right, it was inevitable. Given that group is not happy with McCain, it's hard to know if they would come out anyway or not. We also have a relatively high Latino, (mostly Catholic) pop.

    GOTV depends on a lot of good microtargeting - and this is the first year we have had that capacity to the degree the GOP has, and door knocking, phone calling, etc.

    So on top of campaigning for all the candidates, we are going to have to waste time on this STOOPID cause. Not sure if there is a process of the petition undergoing legal review to see if it is pointless. Theoretically the writers did their homework but I just don't see how it can be put into effect - except the unintended consequences.

    Wait (none / 0) (#52)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:09:46 AM EST
    it doesn't carry the seed?

    Parent
    Interesting republican tactic... (none / 0) (#47)
    by gmo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:16:51 AM EST
    Any guesses as to the other wedge issues we might see come up in a select few western purple states?  

    With Obama's redrawing of the electoral map, putting any one of these wedge value issues on the ballot in his western state coalition really puts a wrinkle in his EV strategy.  And given how brittle that strategy is, the Repubs really only need one or two of them to succeed for McCain to win.    


    It would be interesting (none / 0) (#49)
    by Foxx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:24:20 AM EST
    It would bring things down to the basics.

    Because no person has the right to live inside my body or use it as their life support system without my consent.

    Women are invisible to the abnti-abortionists. We are just incubators to them. They do not see the cost to women of pregnancy.

    Of course there is no guarantee the SC would actually decide women are people.

    CO is a blue state. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:24:17 AM EST
    I know it's a battleground this year, but to me, it's one of the less battlegroundish states. The Dem Party organization in CO is strengthening leaps and bounds with the impending convention in Denver, and even an issue like this isn't going to get much traction in a pro-choice state like CO.

    Obama will win this state handily, as would Clinton, I believe. Before November, I think we'll see more states, as we have seen with OH and PA, trend more and more Democratic as we get farther away from the primaries.

    If this passes (none / 0) (#54)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:48:38 AM EST
    defines a "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization."

    how long before a rape victim sues the fertilized egg for pain and suffering?


    Does that mean (none / 0) (#55)
    by themomcat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:56:20 AM EST
    a pregnant woman gets to vote twice? This could be fun.

    Parent
    Voting will still be age-limited (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:21:53 AM EST
    but how about using HOV lanes now that there's two of you?

    or getting a free dinner where "kids eat free"

    will the mother's working hours be restricted per the laws regarding minors,

    Parent

    Doesn't Colorado (none / 0) (#59)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:52:17 AM EST
    also have an anti-affirmative action measure on the ballot this fall?  That's two wedge issues that are certain to bring out the conservatives....

    This will not pass... (none / 0) (#61)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:16:55 AM EST
    ...and even if it does, it will not stand up to a court challenge.  It is poorly written and poorly thought out.  A lot of Republicans I know have the same thoughts and are not supporting it.

    It will appeal to the nuts in Colorado Springs, but have little appeal anywhere else.  Colorado is a pro-choice state (but not the 70% mentioned above).  

    Nineteen year olds should not be writing public policy, no matter how well meaning they may be.