Unreconciled Questions Leave No Quarter Save Lying
Rep. Cory Gardner's struggle to cope with simple facts is instructive
The mere politics of Colorado's Fourth Congressional District are strange enough.
The background: In 2010, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck won the Republican nomination to challenge the appointed incumbent, Sen. Michael Bennet (D), who succeeded former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. In a year that saw the Republican Party enjoy great success, even winning control of the House, Buck lost by a 1.7% margin, an outcome overwhelmingly attributed to perceived antagonism of women—in 2010 he explained to voters that he was a better candidate for office than fellow Republican Jane Norton, formerly Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, because he didn't wear high heels, and then the ugly story emerged that he used his office as Weld County District Attorney to aid and abet a confessed rape. This year, Buck declared his intent to run for Senate again, this time against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Udall. Someone, somewhere figured out this wasn't a good idea; Rep. Cory Gardner of the Fourth CD would step up to run for Senate; Mr. Buck dropped his candidacy for Senate and filed to run for Gardner's seat in the House.
Politically, the otherwise popular Gardner shares one particular point of overlap with Buck's despised misogyny: Both men support personhood legislation.
And while the national Republican leadership might think it's all a matter of packaging, Gardner has struggled badly at every turn when addressing personhood in utero. After all, he put his name on a bill intended to create exactly that outcome. And while the question has pressed at least since March, it has been a morbidly curious comedy of errors. Most recently, Brandon Rittiman of KUSA 9 News caught up with each of the candidates, and Gardner attempted a rather astounding tack:
And the politics of personhood are once again brought into sharp focus; Rep. Gardner has chosen to leave his name on the bill:
H.R. 1091 (Life at Conception Act) uses Fourteenth Amendment equal protection to functionally outlaw all abortion and also any birth control that disrupts implantation of a fertilized zygote; this is a personhood bill, regardless of what the Congressman wants to call it.
But that is the political consideration; what drives it is a functional issue, one that confounds advocates of Fertilization-Assigned Personhood. Very simply, these laws create by decree a period in which two people assert equally protected rights in direct spatial and temporal conflict. The functional answer from the FAP outlook is clear; the problem is that there really is no good packaging for the argument that women have lesser equal protection than anyone else.
And herein arises a basic ethical question: If you're afraid to admit it, should you really be supporting it?
Or, perhaps more bluntly: If you feel the need to lie about your support, why are you giving that support in the first place?
Or is it okay to lie, since it's one o'them "women's issues"?
How does this work, ethically? The constitutional principles in play have enormous significance. What exactly happens in this conflict of equally protected rights if government elevates a new class of person for the purposes of equal protection?
____________________
Notes:
Rittiman, Brandon. "Chasing answers on the senate campaign trail". 9News. September 6, 2014. 9News.com. September 22, 2014. http://www.9news.com/story/news/pol...nswers-on-the-senate-campaign-trail/15157141/
Salzman, Jason. "Gardner all in on federal personhood bill". Colorado Pols. September 19, 2014. ColoradoPols.com. September 22, 2014. http://coloradopols.com/diary/62985/gardner-all-in-on-federal-personhood-bill
113th Congress. H.R. 1091: 'Life at Conception Act'. March 12, 2013. Beta.Congress.gov. September 22, 2014. https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1091/text
Rep. Cory Gardner's struggle to cope with simple facts is instructive
The mere politics of Colorado's Fourth Congressional District are strange enough.
The background: In 2010, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck won the Republican nomination to challenge the appointed incumbent, Sen. Michael Bennet (D), who succeeded former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. In a year that saw the Republican Party enjoy great success, even winning control of the House, Buck lost by a 1.7% margin, an outcome overwhelmingly attributed to perceived antagonism of women—in 2010 he explained to voters that he was a better candidate for office than fellow Republican Jane Norton, formerly Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, because he didn't wear high heels, and then the ugly story emerged that he used his office as Weld County District Attorney to aid and abet a confessed rape. This year, Buck declared his intent to run for Senate again, this time against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Udall. Someone, somewhere figured out this wasn't a good idea; Rep. Cory Gardner of the Fourth CD would step up to run for Senate; Mr. Buck dropped his candidacy for Senate and filed to run for Gardner's seat in the House.
Politically, the otherwise popular Gardner shares one particular point of overlap with Buck's despised misogyny: Both men support personhood legislation.
And while the national Republican leadership might think it's all a matter of packaging, Gardner has struggled badly at every turn when addressing personhood in utero. After all, he put his name on a bill intended to create exactly that outcome. And while the question has pressed at least since March, it has been a morbidly curious comedy of errors. Most recently, Brandon Rittiman of KUSA 9 News caught up with each of the candidates, and Gardner attempted a rather astounding tack:
Rittiman was also lucky enough to sit down with Republican Cory Gardner. The people not voting for him accuse Gardner of trying to gloss over his conservative record representing rural eastern Colorado in the House.
His fellow co-sponsors disagree with Gardner, saying the bill is personhood. It would "implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and preborn human person." Gardner says it isn't a focus of his campaign.
At the very least, the bill is meant to set up a legal challenge to a woman's right to choose. 9NEWS asked a few times for Gardner to share the details of his canceled healthcare plan, which he has used as an issue in the campaign.
Most recent polls have Udall and Gardner in a statistical tie.
Rittiman: What do you say to that line of attack? Are you not trying to become a little more moderate as you run statewide?
Gardner: Look, I think if you're Senator Udall and you voted 99 percent of the time with Barack Obama, you can't run on the economy because his economic policies have failed.
Gardner: Look, I think if you're Senator Udall and you voted 99 percent of the time with Barack Obama, you can't run on the economy because his economic policies have failed.
Rittiman: How do you square your recent change on personhood at the state level with the bill that you still are on in Congress. The life begins at conception act?
Gardner: Well, there is no federal personhood bill. They're two different pieces of legislation, two different things.
Gardner: Well, there is no federal personhood bill. They're two different pieces of legislation, two different things.
His fellow co-sponsors disagree with Gardner, saying the bill is personhood. It would "implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and preborn human person." Gardner says it isn't a focus of his campaign.
Rittiman: I get what you're saying, it's not the top of your pile. But it's still a piece of legislation that says abortion ought to be illegal, no?
Gardner: No. It says life begins at conception. Look, Sen. Mark Udall is trying to say that it's something that it's not.
Gardner: No. It says life begins at conception. Look, Sen. Mark Udall is trying to say that it's something that it's not.
At the very least, the bill is meant to set up a legal challenge to a woman's right to choose. 9NEWS asked a few times for Gardner to share the details of his canceled healthcare plan, which he has used as an issue in the campaign.
Rittiman: You don't want to discuss the details of your old plan?
Gardner: Well, look. This is about a promise that Mark Udall made. About being able to choose the health insurance that they liked for their family. Mark Udall didn't tell people that if you had this policy or that policy you might be able to keep this but not that. Mark Udall promised if you like your plan you could keep your plan. He broke that promise.
Gardner: Well, look. This is about a promise that Mark Udall made. About being able to choose the health insurance that they liked for their family. Mark Udall didn't tell people that if you had this policy or that policy you might be able to keep this but not that. Mark Udall promised if you like your plan you could keep your plan. He broke that promise.
Most recent polls have Udall and Gardner in a statistical tie.
And the politics of personhood are once again brought into sharp focus; Rep. Gardner has chosen to leave his name on the bill:
The House of Representatives adjourned at noon today, meaning Colorado senatorial candidate Cory Gardner has officially missed his chance to withdraw his name from the Life at Conception Act, a federal personhood bill, prior to the Nov. election.
To uncosponsor the bill, Gardner would have had to make a statement from the House floor, and now the House is out of session until Nov. 12.
In March, Gardner reversed his longstanding support of state personhood amendments.
But in an endlessly puzzling move, the congressman did not also remove his name from the federal personhood bill ....
(Salzman)
To uncosponsor the bill, Gardner would have had to make a statement from the House floor, and now the House is out of session until Nov. 12.
In March, Gardner reversed his longstanding support of state personhood amendments.
But in an endlessly puzzling move, the congressman did not also remove his name from the federal personhood bill ....
(Salzman)
H.R. 1091 (Life at Conception Act) uses Fourteenth Amendment equal protection to functionally outlaw all abortion and also any birth control that disrupts implantation of a fertilized zygote; this is a personhood bill, regardless of what the Congressman wants to call it.
But that is the political consideration; what drives it is a functional issue, one that confounds advocates of Fertilization-Assigned Personhood. Very simply, these laws create by decree a period in which two people assert equally protected rights in direct spatial and temporal conflict. The functional answer from the FAP outlook is clear; the problem is that there really is no good packaging for the argument that women have lesser equal protection than anyone else.
And herein arises a basic ethical question: If you're afraid to admit it, should you really be supporting it?
Or, perhaps more bluntly: If you feel the need to lie about your support, why are you giving that support in the first place?
Or is it okay to lie, since it's one o'them "women's issues"?
How does this work, ethically? The constitutional principles in play have enormous significance. What exactly happens in this conflict of equally protected rights if government elevates a new class of person for the purposes of equal protection?
____________________
Notes:
Rittiman, Brandon. "Chasing answers on the senate campaign trail". 9News. September 6, 2014. 9News.com. September 22, 2014. http://www.9news.com/story/news/pol...nswers-on-the-senate-campaign-trail/15157141/
Salzman, Jason. "Gardner all in on federal personhood bill". Colorado Pols. September 19, 2014. ColoradoPols.com. September 22, 2014. http://coloradopols.com/diary/62985/gardner-all-in-on-federal-personhood-bill
113th Congress. H.R. 1091: 'Life at Conception Act'. March 12, 2013. Beta.Congress.gov. September 22, 2014. https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1091/text
Last edited: