Yet another clueless Penis getting involved in women’s health – without a CLUE as to the amount of damage he is doing. If you are a “Pro-lifer” I advise you to wake up, get a clue and research the damage you are doing to humanity as a whole. Where is your “Moral Stand” when women are being beaten and raped, tortured and murdered? Where your moralistic outrage when unwanted children are beaten, tortured, and murdered? Where is your kindness, your outrage, when the victims of incest are forced to carry to term the twisted get of their terror? Gardner, and his ilk, are twisted, misogynistic monsters who should NEVER be allowed access to any ability to make things even worse for victims. This sort of hatred and viciousness, this power to destroy the lives of victims, should NOT be allowed to stand! If you have any compassion in your soul, I hope you can be counted on to help fight this honorific person and his evil hatred of the victims of crimes. Believe me – I was an unwanted child – and the torture and viciousness I went through was nothing compared to the brutalized bodies, the broken souls, that I dealt with as a police officer and then as a victim counselor. What these sorts of people are doing isn’t kind or good, ethical or moral by any means. It is the work of cruel, vicious people who use a twisted “moral” play to exercise their power and cruelty to punish victims and contribute the the number of tortured souls littering this country. It is an outrage, and a blight on the face of humanity. These are the sorts of people that are so common in the Middle East – people who find it perfectly acceptable to murder the women in their families because they were raped by vicious attackers through no fault of their own. The same type of twisted morality that will blame the woman victim, while applauding the “manliness” of the attacker.  Moral, emotional and physical sadism in what we purport to be the “Greatest Free Country In The World.” Really? I suppose if you sport a penis you might say so . . .

CHECK THE RESEARCH:

GARDNER: ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IN ALL INSTANCES

Gardner Opposed Abortion In All Instances. “Markey, the Democratic incumbent from Fort Collins, supports a woman’s right to make decisions on abortion; Gardner says abortion should be illegal in all instances. ‘I’ve been very up-front on it; I am pro-life,’ Gardner, a state representative from Yuma, said in an interview with the Coloradoan. When asked if he would allow exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger, Gardner said, ‘I’m pro-life, and I believe abortion is wrong.’” [Fort Collins Coloradoan, 9/26/10]

Gardner Said He Was Willing To Sponsor Legislation To Ban Abortion: “Yes, And I Have The Legislative Background To Back It Up.” “Four Republican candidates seeking the Republican congressional nomination shared a stage for the first time at a Nov. 13, 2009, forum organized by Northern Colorado tea party and 9-12 groups. They were asked, ‘Do you believe that abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and if yes, are you willing to carry legislation to end the practice?’ All four candidates – Gardner, Diggs Brown, Dean Madere and Tom Lucero – answered yes, with Gardner giving the most succinct answer. ‘Yes, and I have the legislative background to back it up,’ he said to applause.” [Fort Collins Coloradoan, 10/3/10]

GARDNER CO-SPONSORED BILL TO BAN ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST

2007: Gardner Co-Sponsored Senate Bill 143 Which Would “Make Abortion A Felony Even In Cases Or Rape Or Incest.” “At the heart of the ad is Gardner’s sponsorship of a 2007 proposal to make abortion a felony even in cases of rape or incest. When he was a state lawmaker, Gardner signed onto Senate Bill 143 as a co-sponsor — he did not carry the bill himself, his campaign points out.” [KDVR, 4/22/14]

Gardner Cosponsored Bill To Make Abortion A Class 3 Felony. In 2007, Gardner sponsored SB 07-143 in the Colorado General Assembly which was an anti-abortion bill that would outlaw all abortions with the exception of cases that is “designed to protect the death of a pregnant mother, if the physician makes reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.” Per the legislative text, the bill would make it “a class 3 felony to perform an abortion.” [Colorado General Assembly, SB 07-143; Fort Collins Coloradoan, 10/3/10]

  • Senate Bill 143 Would Have Banned Abortion In Cases Of Rape And Incest, Doctors “Would Face A Class 3 Felony” And A Prison Term Of Up To 12 Years. “Senate Bill 143 proposed to ban all abortions in Colorado, except when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. This would include banning abortions to women who have been victims of rape and/or incest. Any doctors who performed abortions outside of these lines would face a third degree felony that could carry a prison term up to 12 years.” [CU Independent, 2/14/07]
  • Life News: Senate Bill 143 “Would Have Banned Most Abortions, Except In Very Rare Cases To Save The Life Of The Mother.” According to Life News, an anti-choice news outlet, “Colorado legislators voted on Monday to kill a bill that would have offered legal protection to unborn children who are victims of abortion. The measure, modeled after the abortion ban the South Dakota state legislature approved last year, would have banned most abortions, except in very rare cases to save the life of the mother.” [Life News, 2/12/07]
  • Headline & Subheadline: “Senate Bill Seeks To Ban Abortion In Colorado. Senate Bill 143 Heads To Committee” [The Denver Channel, 2/11/07]
  • “Senate Bill 143 Seeks To Ban All Abortions In Colorado With The Exception Of Situations When The Life Of The Mother Is In Jeopardy.” “An abortion bill that has created fierce debate among lawmakers and citizens will be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. Senate bill 143 seeks to ban all abortions in Colorado with the exception of situations when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.” [7News Denver, 2/11/07]

9News Truth Test: “True” That Gardner Sponsored A Bill To Make Abortion A Felony. “CLAIM: ‘Gardner sponsored a bill to make abortion a felony.’ VERDICT: True. In 2007, as a member of the state House of Representatives, Gardner was listed as a sponsor of SB-147. The bill would have made it ‘a class 3 felony to perform an abortion,’ so the felony charge would have applied to abortion providers, not women who underwent abortions.” [Truth Test, 9News, 4/23/14]

9News Truth Test: “True” Gardner Supported A Bill Making Abortion A Felony In Cases Of Rape And Incest. “CLAIM: The bill Gardner supported would make abortion a felony in ‘cases of rape and incest.’ VERDICT: True. SB-147 did contain an exception to save the life of the mother. Aside from that, the bill would have outlawed abortion with no other exceptions.” [Truth Test, 9News, 4/23/14]

GARDNER SUPPORTED FEDERAL AND COLORADO STATE PERSONHOOD MEASURES WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY OUTLAW ALL ABORTIONS – EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST

Gardner Supported 2010 Personhood Amendment In Colorado. “Gardner announced at a 2010 congressional debate that he had collected signatures to put a personhood amendment on the ballot. Amendment 62 failed 71 percent to 29 percent, with 1.28 million voters opposed and nearly 475,000 in support of it.” [Denver Post, 3/24/14]

July 2013: Gardner Cosponsored The Life At Conception Act. [HR 1091, co-sponsored 7/23/13]

  • “Gardner Co-Sponsored A Bill In Congress As Recently As Last Year To Give Personhood Status To Fertilized Eggs.” [Associated Press, 3/25/14]

March 2012: Gardner Cosponsored Life At Conception Act. [HR 374, co-sponsored3/20/12]

Gardner Continued Supporting Personhood As A Cosponsor Of National Personhood, Even After Saying He Flipped On Personhood In Colorado. “The second-term Congressman, who represents Colorado’s rural and conservative Fourth District, famously reversed his longtime support for the anti-abortion personhood movement in March, a month after announcing he was running for Senate. Gardner was criticized as a flip-flopper. But he hadn’t performed even a full flip. He shuffle-stepped before he left the ground and tried to have it both ways. He said he didn’t support personhood… in Colorado. He made it known to his pro-life supporters that he was still an anti-abortion lawmaker. And he continues to support as a cosponsor a national personhood bill, the so-called Life at Conception Act.” [Colorado Independent, 7/2/14]

Personhood Measures “Would Effectively Outlaw Abortions” And “Many Forms Of Contraception.” “The personhood measures would effectively outlaw abortions and, critics say, many forms of contraception. They have been overwhelmingly rejected at the polls in Colorado — the last one failed 70-30 — and have been used by Democrats to paint Republicans as extremists on social issues.” [Associated Press, 3/25/14]

Huffington Post: The Personhood Amendment Banned All Abortions, Even For Rape. According to the Huffington Post, “The personhood amendment, which would ban all abortion, even for rape, forces a discussion about when life begins and why–which can lead to religion–as we saw in the video of Rep. Cory Gardner saying he circulated personhood petitions in his church.” [Huffington Post, 3/10/14; Cory Gardner Shows Love For Personhood, Accessed 3/14/14]

2010 Colorado Personhood Amendment Would Ban Abortion In All Cases, Including Rape And Incest, In Addition To Potentially Criminalizing Doctors Who Terminated Ectopic Pregnancies And Banning Multiple Forms Of The Birth Control Pill. From a US News And World Report blog post by Democratic strategist Laura Chapin: “Like Buck, Gardner has been an enthusiastic supporter of the ballot measures that would give full legal rights to fertilized eggs in the Colorado Constitution, also known as ‘Personhood.’ This proposal would ban abortion in all cases, even for victims of rape and incest, potentially criminalize doctors who terminate life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, and ban many forms of birth control, including the IUD and some types of the Pill. There’s another Personhood measure on the ballot this year, even though the last one lost 70-30 in 2010.” [US News And World Report, Laura Chapin blog, 2/27/14]

Legislation That Defines A Fertilized Egg As A Human Being Would Ban All Abortions, Including Those Resulting From Rape And Incest, And Would Bar Common Forms Of Birth Control, Like The Moring After Pill. “A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder. […]The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. […] A similar measure has been defeated twice, by large margins, in Colorado.” [New York Times, 10/25/11]

GARDNER CO-SPONSORED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HAVE REDEFINED RAPE AS “FORCIBLE RAPE”

2011: Gardner Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of A Bill To Prohibit Federal Funding For Abortion, Except In Cases Of “Forcible Rape,” Incest, Or Life Of The Mother. In January 2011, Gardner was an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3. According to the New York Times, “One bill, the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’ would eliminate tax breaks for private employers who provide health coverage if their plans offer abortion services, and would forbid women who use a flexible spending plan to use pre-tax dollars for abortions. Those restrictions would go well beyond current law prohibiting the use of federal money for abortion services. The bill, sponsored by Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, has drawn fire over language that undercuts a longstanding exemption on the ban on using federal money for abortions in the case of rape or incest; the measure narrows the definition of rape to ‘forcible rape,’ a term that his office has never defined. Democratic lawmakers and others repeatedly hammered on the term, saying it suggested that victims of statutory rape and other crimes could not get abortions paid for with federal money. While Mr. Smith’s staff said last week that the term ‘forcible rape’ would be removed from the bill, the staff of Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, said that language remained intact as of Tuesday.” [H.R. 3, co-sponsored 1/20/11; New York Times, 2/8/11]

  • Gardner Joined Todd Akin As The Bill’s Original Co-Sponsor. According to an opinion piece by Democratic operative Laura Chapin, published in the Denver Post, “Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan — along with Akin, Gardner, Lamborn and Coffman — co-sponsored the original version of HR 3. They apparently had no objection to the ‘forcible rape’ language.” [Laura Chapin, Denver Post, 8/21/12]
  • The “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act” Attempted To Narrow The Definition Of Rape To “Forcible Rape.” “Ryan also cosponsored the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ with Akin in 2011. The GOP tried to narrow the definition of rape as it related to abortions with the measure. Only in instances of ‘forcible rape,’ the bill specified, would a woman be eligible to have her abortion covered under insurance. The sentiment behind the notorious attempt to redefine rape was echoed in Akin’s comment on Sunday.” [Huffington Post, 8/19/12]
  • The Term “Forcible Rape” Was Used In The Original Bill And Eventually Dropped From The Measure. According to the Washington Post, “Responding to Democratic charges that he sought to narrow the definition of rape when he co-sponsored a House measure last year that used the term ‘forcible rape,’ presumptive GOP vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan said Monday that the phrase was ‘stock language’ and that he agreed with its eventual removal from the bill. […] The GOP-led House has passed several abortion funding-related measures this Congress, but the one that employed the term ‘forcible rape’ – H.R. 3, also known as the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ – has drawn renewed scrutiny in the wake of Missouri GOP Senate nominee Todd Akin’s remark that ‘legitimate rape’ rarely results in pregnancy. Both Akin and Ryan were co-sponsors of H.R. 3. A spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), the bill’s main sponsor, told The Post last February that the term ‘forcible rape’ was eventually dropped from the measure because it had been ‘misconstrued’ by critics.” [Washington Post, 8/27/12]

FORCIBLE RAPE WOULD NOT INCLUDE STATUTORY RAPE OR RAPE OCCURRING BECAUSE VICTIM WAS DRUGGED

Changing Rape To “Forcible Rape” Could “Distinguish It From Other Kinds Of Sexual Assault That Are Typically Recognized As Rape, Including Statutory Rape And Attacks That Occur Because Of Drugs Or Verbal Threats.” “A Republican bill seeking to permanently cut off federal funding for abortions has angered women’s groups that say it alters the definition of rape, permitting coverage for the procedure only in cases in which the rape is considered ‘forcible.’ The bill, called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, would make permanent several provisions that have been law for years but require annual renewal by Congress. It is a top priority of Republican leaders who took control of the House after the November elections. The most well-known provision that would become permanent under the bill is the Hyde Amendment, which prevents some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions. For years, it has allowed exemptions in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the woman is threatened. Under the proposed language, however, rape becomes ‘forcible rape.’ Critics say the modifier could distinguish it from other kinds of sexual assault that are typically recognized as rape, including statutory rape and attacks that occur because of drugs or verbal threats.” [Washington Post, 2/1/11]

  • National Women’s Law Center Government Relations Director: “It Speaks To A Distinction Between Rape Where There Must Be Some Element Of Force In Order To Rise To The Standard, And Rape Where There Is Not.” From an article on H.R. 3: “A Republican bill seeking to permanently cut off federal funding for abortions has angered women’s groups that say it alters the definition of rape, permitting coverage for the procedure only in cases in which the rape is considered ‘forcible.’ […] ‘It speaks to a distinction between rape where there must be some element of force in order to rise to the standard, and rape where there is not,’ said Steph Sterling, director of government relations for the National Women’s Law Center. ‘The concern here is that it takes us back to a time where just saying no was not enough.’” [Washington Post, 2/1/11]

H.R. 3 Would Alter The Definition Of Rape To “Forcible Rape” Which “Would Rule Out Federal Assistance For Abortions In Many Rape Cases, Including Instances Of Statutory Rape, Many Of Which Are Non-Forcible.” “For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’ a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases. With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to ‘forcible rape.’ This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible.” [Mother Jones, 1/28/11]

H.R. 3 Would Alter The Definition Of Rape To “Forcible Rape” Which Would Not Include “Rapes In Which The Woman Was Drugged Or Given Excessive Amounts Of Alcohol, Rapes Of Women With Limited Mental Capacity, And Many Date Rapes.” “With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to ‘forcible rape.’ […] Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. ‘There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included,’ Levenson says.” [Mother Jones, 1/28/11]

Critics Of H.R. 3 Said “Forcible Rape” Legislation “Would Exclude Victims Of Statutory Rape Or Rapes Involving Drugs.” “The legislation — known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act — was first introduced on July 29, 2010 by New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith (R-4th Dist.). […] After the GOP took control of the House, Smith re-introduced the bill on Jan. 20, 2011. Again, at the time of introduction, Ryan and Akin became co-sponsors, and the legislation still contained the phrase ‘forcible rape.’ […] Yet that term ignited an outcry among various critics, who said the phrase would exclude victims of statutory rape or rapes involving drugs.” [Politifact, 8/22/12]

Advertisements