Transforming Abortion Politics

by Ed Hanks

Time was, you couldn't get elected as a Republican in Colorado if you didn't have the "three exceptions." Candidates would be coached to say, "I'm opposed to abortion except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother."

Such candidates were actually considered fully pro-life. Or "as pro-life as we can get."

Thank God that time is past.

Pro-life groups were complicit, allowing candidates to get away with calling themselves "pro-life", even if they supported abortion for what turns out to be 8,000 dead, fully innocent, human babies every year. Yes, it's less than 1% of abortions nationwide, but those 8,000 children have the same Right to Life as the rest of us. They should be protected -- there's no reason to exclude these innocent children as less than human, just because the circumstances of their birth involved a rape.

Today's pro-life movement realizes that. It's time candidates realize that too.

How important is it to you that your representatives in Congress and at the State Legislature share your views on life issues? That they be not just "pro-life with exceptions," but fully pro-life, opposed to all abortions?

If you think that's important, I'm going to remind you in just a moment and see if it was really that important.

The world is changing. More than 50% of Americans -- more than 50% of WOMEN! -- tell Gallup Polls they're pro-life. A quarter of Americans think abortion should never be allowed, except to save the life of the mother (which is not really an abortion, so long as the doctor tries to save both mother and child). Even the European Union is entering a petition-gathering phase to try to ban abortion across the European continent. If the EU doesn't approve it, at least it will put Europeans' representatives on record for their constituents to know where they stand.

The same thing is happening in the US. This year, six of the top candidates for the GOP presidential nomination (Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, Perry, Gingrich & Cain) endorsed the Personhood of the unborn child, pledging that they would support abortion for NO reason.

In Colorado, 69% of Republicans at the State Assembly voted for Personhood protections beginning at conception.

Yet, only 25% of Colorado legislators support Personhood -- about 25 of them, only half of the Republicans.

One reason why is there's more money available to support liberal candidates, even in GOP primaries. A pro-Personhood candidate in 2010 lost the primary to the legislature's most pro-abortion Republican because the pro-Obamacare medical lobby came through with thousands of dollars for her! Now, Sen. Ellen Roberts (R-Durango) is the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and she voted with the Democrats to kill this year's Fetal Homicide measure which would have simply recognized unborn victims of crime as victims under the law, and not just a sad side-effect of an attack upon her mother.

Making sure that you and your friends only vote for pro-Personhood candidates is just one part of the solution.

Another key part is making sure pro-Personhood candidates have enough money to compete, not just in the November elections, but even in the June primary election against Republicans who aren't pro-life.

So how important is it to you?  Is it important enough to contribute just $50 to pro-Personhood candidates?

If so, please use this donate button and give $50 to the Conservative Renewal Fund (CRF) small donor committee.

Being pro-life is not the only criteria for the candidates to meet -- they're asked to be pro-liberty and fiscally conservative too -- but every candidate who gets money from the Conservative Renewal Fund will be pledged to support Personhood protections for unborn children in law -- from conception until natural death.

I realize the financial stresses placed upon families these days.  My family feels them too.  But we do find small amounts to give to causes we believe in, including to support Personhood and the candidates who also support Personhood.  If you've found it in your heart to "put your money where your mouth is," then bless you!

If you are willing to give more, then I will point you to another committee that does the same thing, but which deals in larger amounts of money.  Colorado Conservative Action (CCA) has the same criteria as the Conservative Renewal Fund, and you may donate up to $500 to give to candidates through CCA.  The button to donate to CCA is below.

Remember, if YOU don't donate, someone who supports abortion surely will, and the results will be predictale. Pro-life candidates cannot win enough of these seats without financial support from like-minded citizens.

If you can only contribute a smaller amount, or if you'd prefer not to donate online, please send it in by mail:

Ed Hanks
Colorado Conservative Action
1005 Northridge Rd.
Littleton, CO 80126
720-301-4270

Bless you for your beliefs, and bless you for the moral support you provide to efforts to establish Personhood for the unborn. Bless you if you've decided to support these candidates financially.

Please, if you cannot spare money, PLEASE pray for us, please help collect signatures for the 2012 Personhood amendment, and please vote for ONLY those candidates who pledge to support Personhood.

A list of pro-Personhood candidates in Colorado can be found at the Colorado Right to Life Blog.

Together, we will persevere and the children will be protected.

The world is changing! Will you help change it?

Backing Conservatives in Primaries - Why It Matters

Two things happened at the Colorado Capitol Wednesday (Apr. 11) which illustrate how utterly important it is to support conservative candidates in primaries. Vocal personal support isn't enough - they need your financial support, within your means.

In a minute I'll explain an easy, affordable way to help.

Case 1: Some Republicans Oppose Republican Principles

Wednesday, House Republicans and Democrats debated Colorado's budget. There are 33 Republicans, and 32 Democrats - a 1-vote GOP majority.

Conventional wisdom says when it's that close, you support any Republican, no matter if they oppose conservative principles. Don't rock the boat.

Some Republicans, led by Rep. Chris Holbert and Rep. Marsha Looper, rocked the boat. They made a stand against taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Any taxpayer funding (direct or indirect) for an organization that provides abortions is illegal under Colorado law - it's in the Constitution. That doesn't stop Democrats from trying anyway. And they did Wednesday.

Holbert, Looper, and a number of other stalwart conservatives rallied the troops and got every Republican to vote NO on funding.

That's a success story. But how did we get there?

Wouldn't it have been easier to block funding back when the GOP had more than a one-vote majority? Seems like a point in favor of the "big tent" and "don't rock the boat" camps, but it's not.

The backstory is that just a few years ago, even when Republicans held a substantial majority in the Statehouse, a few Republican legislators - as many as one-third - would have voted with the Democrats to support Planned Parenthood.

Primaries matter. Supporting conservative candidates matters.

If conservative candidates hadn't stepped up and challenged the liberal, RINO Republicans (Republicans in Name Only), and if conservative citizens hadn't stepped up and donated to the conservative cause, a majority of the House would still support Planned Parenthood and all the killing they do. Excusing all the state laws they violate. Accepting all the young women they place in jeopardy.  

YOUR tax money supporting the deaths of thousands of unborn children in Colorado! 

Supporting conservative candidates matters!

In 2010, my political committee, Colorado Conservative Action, helped Rep. Chris Holbert win a 3-way primary election. He's now a rising star in the conservative movement, and is leading the fight on many conservative issues.

Case 2: Some Republicans Are Liberal Extremists

In 2003, Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife Laci and dumped her body, and the body of his unborn son Connor, into San Francisco Bay. California charged him with two murders.

In the years since then, public outcry caused 38 states to enact laws allowing the killing of an unborn child during the commission of a crime to be charged as a separate murder. Colorado, almost a decade later, remains one of a handful without such a law.

Why? Because so many Republican legislators did whatever Planned Parenthood wanted. Pro-abortion forces had a functional majority in a legislature controlled by Republicans! And Planned Parenthood didn't want any laws on the books that might suggest an unborn child has value to anyone - even his or her own pregnant mother.

Polls show anywhere from 70-90% of citizens believe the killing of pregnant moms' "wanted" children should be prosecuted as murder. A majority of Democrats hold such a position. Even a majority of pro-choicers. Opposing these laws is extreme!

But Wednesday, Republican Senator Ellen Roberts voted with the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to kill even this most basic protection for unborn children - a measure supported by the vast majority of Coloradans. Roberts has been in the pocket of Planned Parenthood since she won her first election.

Supporting conservatives is important. Supporting them financially is especially important.

In 2010, Colorado Conservative Action (my political committee) gave money to conservative Republican Dean Boehler during the primary in an attempt to prevent Ellen Roberts from being elected to the Senate. She won the primary anyway, but it wasn't easy.

Colorado Conservative Action tried to stop Ellen Roberts, and her extremist agenda. Maybe with more donations we could have done it. 

She's the most pro-abortion Republican in the Senate. She's also the second worst tax-and-spend Republican in the Senate, according to the Colorado Union of Taxpayers.

Beware all the liberals dressed as conservatives this election season. There are many Republican candidates who don't match their rhetoric.

CCA only supports candidates who are pledged to be 1) pro-life, 2) pro-gun, 3) fiscally conservative, and 4) pro-liberty (and all the things that entails - 10th Amendment, property rights, etc.). You can feel confident that if you donate to Colorado Conservative Action these candidates will be vetted on these important principles, and the money will be wisely allocated only to candidates who really mean what they say.

This committee can only donate to candidates at the state level (i.e. not candidates for federal, county or city offices). By law, I cannot promise to support a particular candidate.

Its goal is to replace liberal Republicans and Democrats with principled conservatives in the State House and Senate by financially supporting them in primaries, and then also in the November election.

Will YOU Donate to Help Conservative Candidates?

Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you want to make sure I'm the real thing. I've worked on campaigns since 1984 and served as a political communicator at the State Capitol as press secretary and speechwriter. I know how to evaluate candidates and how to spot evasions when trying to pin them down.

Colorado Conservative Action can receive checks, or Paypal donations, from US citizens of up to $550 per election cycle. Less than that is fine.

If anything more than $50 is outside your budget, then you could donate to my small donor committee, the Conservative Renewal Fund (I sometimes call it the "Conservative Renewal Authority" for fun).

Anything you can contribute will help the cause. Contributing to Colorado Conservative Action magnifies your money, allowing you to donate more than just direct contributions. It also amplifies your political voice, because candidates who receive donations from CCA know they're getting it because they are steadfast in defending conservative principles and they'll be held accountable.  

Thanks to your generosity, conservative candidates will get a check with a "note" attached - one that says, "Thanks for standing up for conservative values!"

Every individual citizen can donate up to $550. Other members of your household may also donate $550. I'll need to know the name and occupation of each individual donor.

I will appreciate anything you can give, and so will principled candidates.

Ed Hanks
Colorado Conservative Action
1005 Northridge Rd.
Littleton, CO 80126 720-301-4270
coloconservative@aol.com

Find Colorado Conservative Action at www.coloradoconservative.org
($550 donation limit - US citizens only)

or

Find the Conservative Renewal Fund at www.renewalauthority.org
($50 donation limit - US citizens only)

How “Bitter” Conservatives Got Us President Reagan

If not for the “unreasonable” refusal of conservatives to vote for Gerald Ford in the 1976 presidential race, we might have missed the presidency of Ronald Reagan altogether.

Would that have been a good thing? Avoiding Carter's disastrous four years?

Indeed, we could have gone straight from a 6-year Ford presidency (1974-1984) into an 8-year Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush presidency (1981-1988) without even bothering to change business as usual in the GOP.

Just imagine. A regime of moderate Republican control – Nixon, Ford, Dole, Bush… Maybe culminating decades later with Mitt Romney.

We could have seen four decades of Republicans, with only brief, one-term Democrat “corrections.” None of the controversy over “divisive” social issues. None of the pain of reducing government. And, in fact, none of the rabid dislike of Republicans by liberals – why hate those whose differences are merely a matter of degree?

Without that jolt of cold-shower Carterism, would the conservative movement have been strong enough to put Reagan over the top in 1980, against strong challenges by “Vice President Bob Dole” or perhaps “Senator George H.W. Bush?” President Ford would have steered the nomination in their direction. Without Carter, the inadequacies of the Republican establishment would have gone un-exposed, the yearning for a conservative hero uninspired.

In 1976, the incumbent president, Gerald Ford, had taken over from a wounded and resigned Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter took him on – a fresh, up-and-coming governor from Georgia, with a promise to govern as a moderate, not corrupted by Washington politics.

The decision in November wasn’t really a post-Watergate blowout, like many assume. The fact that Carter won by 57 electoral votes obscures the fact that he took only 50.1% of the popular vote (Ford 48%) and a switch of only 29 electoral votes – Texas and Delaware would do it, or New Jersey and Missouri – would have given Ford a full term of his own.

Ronald Reagan spoiled his party.

Reagan, formerly an actor and new-ideas governor of California, didn’t feel Ford met the test for wise government policy. Ford was an example of the “traditional, Rockefeller Republican” who agreed with Democrats that government could provide the solution to problems… IF used in the “right” way. So Reagan declared to run as the conservative alternative to the presumptive nominee.

Everybody knew how THAT had worked out before – 1964, Barry Goldwater. The “failure of conservatism.” Eyes were rolled.

Conventional wisdom said it was stupid to boldly defy the Soviet Union, or to drastically shake up government structures and spending, to try out new, untested economic policies.

But conservative Republicans – the “Tea Party” of that day – were fired up about a paradigm change in Washington. They got behind Reagan in the primaries, and Reagan and Ford entered the Republican National Convention with virtually a 50-50 split in delegates. The decision hung in the balance. Some historians suggest it was Sen. Goldwater’s endorsement of Ford – “for the good of the Party” – that tipped the scales and barely allowed Ford to prevail.

Ford mounted a competitive race against Carter. In the end, he lost the General Election by the slim margins described earlier. Most historians partially blame the bitterness of conservative Reagan supporters who wouldn’t come around behind the more moderate nominee. For many conservatives, Ford was just too tainted with old, country-club tradition to support. This wasn’t why they’d gotten into politics – to choose the lesser of two evils.

Wouldn’t it have been better to choose the “better candidate,” when given a choice between only two people who were likely to win? Why not vote for Ford, if a non-vote or a third-party vote were essentially a vote for Carter? Many Reagan supporters “sucked it up” and voted for Ford, while holding their nose.

But others stuck defiantly to principle, and refused to endorse a moderate, “government is the answer” political philosophy that they felt was already destroying the country.

Without this outgrowth from the bitter primary battle, Ford might well have won. The entire course of American and world history would have been different.

No President Ronald Reagan. No conservative takeover of the GOP. No shakeup of the Washington establishment. No challenging military buildup against the Soviet Union. No “pesky” divisions over the abortion issue.

If conservatives had just been “sensible” and supported the Republican nominee, no matter who he was, or what he believed, would that have been a good thing?

Ronald Reagan required two things to have a chance to win in 1980 – for Gerald Ford to lose… AND for Jimmy Carter to win! The dismal failure of the Carter presidency set up Reagan’s victory in 1980, by showing just how bankrupt, and how mistaken, the Left’s progressive, pro-government fiscal policy and timid foreign policy ideas were.

If there had been no President Carter – and if Gerald Ford had continued those same left-thinking policies the modern GOP had typically accepted – there would have been no conservative revolution.

Would that have been a good thing?

At least the GOP would still hold the White House, right? Isn’t that what’s important? The lesser of two evils? Perpetually?

In the end, withholding one's vote, as a matter of principle, is how principled voters change their party - NOT in the short-term, but definitely in the long-term. Parties DO NOT change unless voters reserve the power to withhold their vote on principle - they only get worse, and less principled, taking their voters for granted.

A vote for a “moderate Republican” today may stifle the conservative movement – cutting off the career of the next Reagan - and continue to habituate the GOP to cultivating more moderates in the confidence that conservatives will vote for whomever they give us.

The wise move for conservatives is to vote for the nominee if he is a conservative, and to hold out for better if he’s not. Don’t feed the trolls in Washington!


Ed Hanks is a former political speechwriter and press secretary who currently works with the pro-life Personhood movement, and consults for pro-Personhood candidates.

Tom Tancredo for Governor

Tom Tancredo is clearly the best candidate for Governor of Colorado, but some of my very conservative, less conservative, and generally Republican friends have gotten stuck on some misinformation which keeps them locked into supporting Republican candidate Dan Maes.

I've expressed my view on voting for principles over party before, in The Folly of the "Big Tent." Basically, political parties give your principles voice and strength only so long as your party actually follows those principles. If they've stopped following your principles, then voting third party is the ONLY way to make your voice heard, even if it means "losing" the election cycle by causing your preferred party to lose. Next time around, the party will be smarter about what positions they take, and considering how humdrum support for the GOP was from its own "base" in 2006 and 2008, contrasted against how strong many of the GOP candidates are this time around, this pretty much proves my point. I.e. by not voting GOP, conservatives "fixed" the GOP (to an extent).

The fact that Tom Tancredo is a "third party" candidate (nevermind that he's polling three times higher than the Republican candidate for governor) should not scare people off. The American Constitution Party is a party that has always stood for values the GOP has always said it stood for (during election time anyway). The fact is, none of us really know what Dan Maes believes, because we know for a fact he's lied (if you doubt this, see below), and so we're never sure if what he says he believes is really what he believes. This is especially clear since his statements on abortion, gun control, immigration policy, etc. have changed over time.

There are two major sticking points keeping Dan Maes supporters from giving up on him and turning to Tom Tancredo, despite the fact that Maes is unlikely to get more than 10% of the vote, in the final tally. Those are 1) partisan/factional investment in the candidate you supported from the beginning, and 2) distrust of Tom Tancredo. I'm going to try to defuse both of these reasons.

Many Republican voters believe in a principle of "always vote Republican." Talk-show host Mike Rosen is the biggest pusher of this concept, which of course I disagree with. Compounding this is this year's Tea Party movement, and its many passionate supporters (who I generally agree with), who believe the Tea Party "made" Dan Maes, and so if Maes loses, so does the Tea Party. The problem with this is that the candidate who the GOP nominated, and who the Tea Party pushed, is NOT the same candidate we thought he was when we supported him. This can be seen by comparing his contradictory statements on the issues, examining his squirrelly campaign spending and hidden books, and understanding his falsified or exaggerated resume. It can be further illustrated by the fact that most of Maes' most vehement critics are his former supporters, including some who volunteered for him (particularly campaign treasurers!), or worked on his staff.

Whether his side or the police chief's side is correct, with regard to his brief record as a police officer in Kansas, it's clear that Maes was not the "Serpico" law-enforcing star he made himself out to be. At best, he worked undercover in a non-dangerous relationship with small time crooks. At worst, he was collaborating with organized crime and tipped them off to a police investigation. I've read the relevant documents on Talking Points Memo and I can establish no "proof" one way or another. Maes also claimed to be a successful businessman, which also appears to have been an exaggeration or falsification. He had good years and he had bad years. And no one is quite sure how he's paying for his house in Evergreen, which brings us to Freda Poundstone...

Freda Poundstone says she gave Dan Maes $300+/- cash because he asked her to help him pay his mortgage, which was behind. Many Maes supporters suggest that Freda Poundstone is a longtime politician, and a Tancredo supporter (though she was earlier a strong Maes supporter), and therefore her word cannot be trusted. Here's my refutation: No one has to believe Freda's account in order to know that Maes lied to all of us. Dan Maes himself admitted he received a substantial sum of money in cash (around $300) from Freda. Whether you believe Freda is telling the truth or not, Maes acknowledged she gave him money, which means either he was lying to us about being a successful businessman, and instead he needed help with his mortgage, or he accepted an illegal cash donation and then didn't report it on his campaign finance filings -- a double illegality. Take your pick -- Maes is either a liar, or a crook. Ironically, he looks better if Freda is telling the truth!

I, personally, was a Dan Maes supporter until after the primary. I voted for him, and I didn't switch automatically when Tom Tancredo entered the race. Once I concluded Dan Maes had lied to me (and especially once he appointed Tambor Williams as his running mate -- someone who I like personally, but whose position on abortion differs from mine), I could only start to believe at least some of the many other charges of resume falsification and financial irregularity were true also. I know Dan Maes lied to me, so I don't trust him, and I don't understand how anyone else still can!

The other objection is some people don't trust Tom Tancredo, and think he's a closet liberal. I laughed the first time I heard this. I got concerned when I saw some of the charges made by Maes supporters about Tancredo, and I looked into them. Some of these charges didn't make me happy. But overall, Tom Tancredo's record is consistently -- even stunningly! -- conservative. I have no worries that Tancredo is a "tax and spend" liberal, as some of these people charge. I was right the first time -- the charge is laughable.

Everyone who's been around Colorado politics for long knows that Tom Tancredo and Bob Schaffer were our most conservative representatives in Washington DC for many years -- they generally voted the same -- and until Doug Lamborn got to Congress Tancredo probably had Colorado's most conservative voting record ever! The National Taxpayer's Union measures fiscally conservative votes in Congress, and rates Congressmen on their votes. Tancredo's worst rating ever was in 2008, when he got 77% from NTU (which still ranked him as the 51st most conservative member of Congress!). In his 10 years in DC, Tancredo was ranked for 5 years as one of the top 5 MOST conservative Congressmen in the whole House of Representatives (i.e. in 2001 he was ranked 3rd out of 435!). Colorado's local affiliate of the NTU is the Colorado Union of Taxpayers (CUT). In 1977-78, when Tancredo was in the legislature, he rated 100% with CUT. He was always in the top 15 most fiscally conservative legislators, and many of those other legislators who have earned top rankings from CUT over the years are supporters of Tom Tancredo. At least 2 members of CUT's board of directors are listed on Tom's endorsement page. I can find no CUT board members on Dan Maes' endorsement list. The charge that Tancredo isn't conservative enough is silly. A few bad choices (which only dropped him to 77% with the NTU) cannot outweigh his years of fiscally conservative leadership.

Lastly, some question Tancredo's ethics for having presented us with a confusing range of political choices this year. First he was in, then he was out, then he was in again... Many fault him for not winning through the Republican primary, but I believe I understand what happened. He was not being "underhanded" as many charge. He was doing what he felt was the best choice at each moment. I'm no close friend of Tom's, though I did get to spend some very revealing personal time with him in Philadelphia in 2000, which made me really like and trust him. But I've had occasion to speak with him in private at different times, and it's only reinforced my feelings of trust in him. With that insight as a guide, here is what I believe happened, to explain his seemingly odd behavior:

Tancredo didn't want either Scott McInnis or Maes as Governor (he apparently picked up things about Maes early on that others like me didn't recognize -- either that he wasn't qualified or had serious problems in his background). Tancredo figured he and Josh Penry would split the conservative vote (Penry was the conservative "golden child" back then, though his luster has been tarnished by his own behavior during the 2010 campaign), so Tancredo dropped out to avoid being a spoiler. Shortly afterward (to my memory), Penry was also talked into leaving. Having no better choices, Tancredo backed a qualified but not-so-conservative McInnis after getting certain promises from him, because he figured he was better than an unqualified Maes. McInnis pressured him to attack third parties to prevent defections (i.e. a well-publicized article where Tancredo said the Tea Party shouldn't mount a third-party challenger), and Tancredo went along because he hadn't considered third parties viable. Then the plagiarism scandal hit McInnis hard, and it looked like Maes might pull off the nomination. Tancredo offered to rejoin the Republican primary, but since most of us still trusted Maes, no one listened. And so Tancredo went to the Constitution Party. In the end, Tancredo may have been the only one who saw all this coming, and I believe he decided unselfishly at every point.

Tancredo helped found the Independence Institute -- one of the nation's foremost watchdogs on fiscal and civil liberties issues -- and served as its president. Tom Tancredo is a reliable fiscal conservative, and has been his whole career in politics. One reason GOP insiders don't like him is he often refused to "play ball" when the President or GOP leadership asked him to vote for Republican-sponsored spending packages. Tancredo is also more trustworthy than Maes on issues protecting a Right to Life for the unborn, because both Tancredo and his running mate have endorsed Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment.

We need Tom Tancredo's kind of leadership at the State Capitol. I urge all conservatives and all Republicans to vote for him, and not Dan Maes.

Don't Be That Guy!

When pro-life candidates who support the Personhood of the unborn child are pressed by the media or their own constituents to defend their beliefs, there's a temptation to go deer-in-the-headlights and back away from solid, principled positions.

DON'T BE THAT GUY!

When you take a principled position on any controversial issue, your political opponents and media gossiphounds are going to make it sound like an extreme position. "Why would you hold such an extreme position?!" they ask. There are two reactions, of course.

You could back away and say I don't hold that position -- distance yourself from the issue. And this is typical candidate behavior, isn't it? But what it does is leave the media and the general public with the conclusion that it WAS an extreme position (or you wouldn't have backed away, right?) and YOU once held it!

DON'T BE THAT GUY (or GAL)!

What's worse, many of your supporters probably support you because you once held that position. What are they to think when you back away? You've not only compromised on the principle which was their reason for supporting you, but you've also, by implication, called THEM extreme for holding the position you've backed away from!

DON'T BE THAT GUY!

The best reaction is to calmly and reasonably explain to the voter, or the media, why it's NOT an extreme position.

Ronald Reagan didn't back away or "run to the center" when challenged with tough questions about dearly held principles. He stuck to his guns, explained why the position was mainstream common sense, rather than extreme. And more often than not the public came to view his position as mainstream!

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund has recently illustrated this, in a fundraising letter. Referring to Tea Party nominees for the U.S. Senate, they charge, "They want to outlaw all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Friend, their position was considered fringe and their candidates ludicrous just a few months ago. Now, they're mainstream." (ht Jill Stanek)

Planned Parenthood is simply recognizing the changing playing field. Five years ago, only a few pro-life activists knew what Personhood meant, and a majority of Americans supported a "right to choose." Two years ago, more than 50% of Americans (including women) identified themselves in polls as pro-life. Today, a broad range of voters and mainstream political candidates around the country are saying "I support the Personhood of the unborn child, and I believe abortion should be banned!" Pro-Life Personhood is now a mainstream political movement.

Because it's such a new concept, candidates who aren't carefully educated in how to respond to tough questions about rape/incest exceptions or birth control are tempted to run away from the issue, even if they once espoused it.

DON'T BE THAT GUY (or GAL)!

Colorado's U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck made this mistake recently. I'm still not 100% convinced he's changed his mind about anything (his campaign spokesman correctly explained his position to 9news.com recently, saying, "Buck believes life 'begins at conception,' so birth control methods that don't impact that (i.e. condoms, some forms of the pill) are fine with him. Others that would keep a fertilized egg from implanting like hormone-based birth control methods, some other forms of the pill, IUDs, RU-486 and what's known as the morning-after pill, are not supported by him." (Source: E-mail from Buck spokesman Owen Loftus to 9NEWS, Aug. 26)).

But the press said he'd changed his mind about supporting Colorado's Amendment 62 (the Personhood Amendment) and the best he could do was clarify that he supports Personhood in concept but hasn't taken a position on any state ballot initiatives. By not jumping on the accusation full-force, Buck allowed some voters to believe he's changed his mind, whether he really did or not. It's not helping with supporters, and it's not helping with moderates or independents, either, because whether or not he still holds that supposedly "extreme" position, everybody knows he once did.

Buck (or his campaign) blinked when he should have stood firm.

DON'T BE THAT GUY!

Simple talking points on Personhood:
1) Arguing for the Personhood of the unborn child is not extreme. Arguing for the continued deaths of 4,000 unborn children every day is extreme!

2) If abortion is murder (i.e. kills an unborn human individual with his/her own unique DNA), as I believe it is, then why would I support an exception just because that child was conceived as part of a rape? You can't punish an innocent Person for a crime committed against somebody else. The inalienable Right to Life for an innocent Person, as guaranteed in the Constitution (the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the Declaration of Independence too) applies, no matter the circumstances.

3) Only 1% of abortions are for rape or incest -- it's extremely rare. Almost every mom who has an abortion is traumatized or depressed by the experience. Adding an abortion to the crime of rape doesn't "comfort" the victim -- it only adds another trauma on top of the first. In cases of incest or date rape, the abortion often serves to shield the criminal from prosecution by covering up the crime. This allows the rapist (the child's father or relative) to continue an incestuous relationship instead of exposing the criminal.

4) No form of birth control would be affected unless it actually has the potential to kill a developing child after conception. If a candidate (or even a voter) believes that life begins at conception, and that all human life should be protected, then they should not have a problem with this. The amendment deals only with living human Persons, not with sperm or eggs before fertilization. Therefore, it cannot logically or legally affect anything other than an abortifacient form of birth control, whether that drug acts as an abortifacient as its primary purpose or has that effect as a secondary side effect. This would affect some forms of birth control, but if a form of birth control is properly called a "contraceptive" (i.e. meaning it acts by preventing conception) then it would not be affected.

5) In Vitro Fertilization would not be banned, but "surplus" embryos (developing human children) could not be "disposed of" -- they would have to be cared for and adopted out through programs such as the Snowflake Children.

I know this isn't something your typical candidate training prepared you for. I even know this may not be the "focus of your campaign." I know politicians have a gut instinct to run away when a voter or reporter accuses you of being extreme because you're 100% pro-life.

DON'T BE THAT GUY (or GAL)!

Being 100% pro-life, supporting Personhood, opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest or for health** reasons is NOT extreme! It has become a mainstream position, and it is the position increasingly held by voters across the United States! Every month that passes and every year that passes, more Americans are coming to hold this very same principle as their own.

I work as a part-time political consultant and campaign consultant on a contract basis. I am happy to offer my time for 20 minutes free to any pro-Personhood candidate in any state who needs help on messaging for these issues. I'd also be glad to contract my time for $35/hr to anyone who needs more assistance in running or preparing a pro-life campaign (I'll work with anybody who pledges to support Personhood in their campaign). If you want to meet in person, or would like for me to speak at an event or engagement, let me know and we can make arrangements for time/travel, etc. Contact me via e-mail with your contact information: Coloconservative (at) aol.com (please put "Personhood Question" in the subject line).

Please also consider donating money to support candidates who hold a principled pro-life position (i.e. pro-Personhood), through my political website: ColoradoConservative.org.

Ed Hanks is a former speechwriter for the Governor of Colorado, a former Press Secretary in the Colorado House of Representatives, and has also served as a campaign consultant and constituent contact director.

**A note on "life of the mother exceptions": Many pro-lifers get stuck on the “life of the mother” exception, because it’s the most compelling of the “hard cases” exceptions some regulations are meant to address (how many times have we heard politicians recite the line, "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother"?). But we need not fall victim even to the life of the mother objection. The Personhood movement cares deeply about the lives of both, mother and child, especially since if the mother dies before the baby comes to term, the child will obviously die too. However, that doesn’t mean we need a “life of the mother exception” in law. Instead, the anti-abortion statute should be absolute. The life of the mother is saved by a doctor trying to save both lives (and thereby “do no harm”), not by a doctor trying to kill one patient in order to save the other. It’s the same concept as separating cojoined twins. The goal should always be to preserve both lives. This is not always possible, because of relative viability, and so sometimes one of the patients dies. The measure of crime or not is intent. If ever the doctor attempts to kill one patient, rather than save him/her, that’s where it becomes homicide. -- Ed Hanks

Analysis of GOP Primary Results

With the final results for the GOP August 10 Primary mostly totaled, we can look back and see how the election went in terms of pro-life, pro-Personhood candidates.

Overall, I see it as a big win for Personhood, despite a few unfortunate setbacks.

In two key primary races the pro-Personhood candidate lost. In the 3rd Congressional District Bob McConnell was one of the first candidates to return the Colorado Right to Life survey, and he affirmed support for Personhood. His opponent didn’t, hasn’t endorsed Personhood, and seems embarrassed by the whole “pro-life” aspect of the campaign, though he claims to be pro-life. But Scott Tipton won, and pro-lifers need to reach out to him and insist that he publicly support Personhood. Tipton’s already lost a race to Democrat John Salazar once, and he will need the support of the pro-life community to win. He’s got work to do, and he can start by publicly endorsing Amendment 62.

In the 6th State Senate District, in southwestern Colorado, there was an important race for State Senate between pro-Personhood Dean Boehler and pro-abortion Ellen Roberts. It looked like Boehler was going to win, but then liberal special interests spent more than $40,000 in 527 money attacking him and promoting his opponent. Plus his opponent outspent him with her own funds. These special interests included groups connected with the pro-Obamacare, pro-abortion Colorado Medical Society. Ellen Roberts is the most pro-abortion Republican in the Legislature today, and so the pro-abortion medical interests will win no matter who wins this race. It’s best if the pro-abort winner is “their pro-abort” (i.e. a Democrat) not “our pro-abort” (a Republican), because that will make it easier to put a pro-lifer into that seat in 4 years.

Also, in Denver’s moderate southwest State Senate district, pro-Personhood CJ Garbo lost to a moderate Republican whose views we don’t know.

But everywhere else, pro-Personhood candidates prevailed over their opponents in hotly contested primaries.

The biggest victory for Personhood today was Ken Buck, for U.S. Senate. Opponent Jane Norton had endorsed Personhood, and generally had a pro-life record, but on her website she endorsed abortion in cases of rape and incest, which is a stand entirely opposed to the concept of Personhood. Ken Buck endorsed Personhood early on, and has been a reliable voice in favor of protecting all life at the beginning of its biological development.

Americans United for Life – a pro-compromise, establishment pro-life group – had endorsed Jane Norton. That was the first endorsement of any candidate that organization had made in four decades. Why did they endorse her? Because of Colorado Right to Life and the Personhood movement! AUL realized that if the winner of the primary for the U.S. Senate was a candidate who supported the Personhood strategy, instead of their compromised regulation strategy, it would be the beginning of the end for their control over the regulatory process. Why would they make this their first endorsement ever, in any state in all of history? Why prefer a candidate with exceptions over a candidate who would protect the life of the unborn from conception forward -- NO exceptions? Ironically, Americans United for Life endorsed Jane Norton specifically because she wasn't 100% pro-life! This was a key race for them – for all the marbles – and they lost. Personhood won.

Another key victory was in the Governor’s race, where we now know there will be two candidates on the November ballot who support Personhood – Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo. Scott McInnis had endorsed Personhood, and even told me in person that if a Personhood bill crossed his desk he would sign it, but there were always doubts on our side if he was serious, or just putting us on. Now we don’t have to worry about it. I’ve spoken with Dan Maes about Personhood myself, after some comments he made that caused us to doubt, and I came away assured that he was serious – he will support Personhood.

As for Tom Tancredo, who I’m betting will stay in the race until the end, his best chance for victory was Dan Maes winning. If McInnis had won, he would probably have been forced out and replaced by a “safe” Republican with lots of money or name recognition, or both. Such a candidate could be relied upon to get a large percentage of the vote. As it is, there are a lot of Republicans who don’t think Dan Maes can win (I disagree), and so those voters will go to Tancredo. Ever since Tancredo first entered the race I have encouraged a “40% solution.” It’s possible Tancredo could get as little as 10% of the vote, and that could allow Dan Maes to win the Governor’s race with only 46% of the vote (split 46-44). But I don’t think that’s realistic. Dan Maes is either going to prove himself and be a strong candidate, or he’ll slip up and be a weak one. Either way, I believe Tancredo will get at least 15-20% of the vote. This means the path to victory is getting 40% or more of the vote. The winner would get 41%, holding Hickenlooper to 40%, with the spoiler getting 19%. It remains to be seen whether the winner might be Tancredo or Maes, but the requirement for either to win must be to hold Hickenlooper to 40%. That’s possible ONLY if both Maes and Tancredo spend their time talking about conservative principles and beating up on Hickenlooper, not on each other. If they fight each other, they’re just trading conservative votes with each other – the winner will have to expand the number of conservative voters by talking about principles and common sense.

Despite his claims, Ryan Frazier, the winner of the 7th Congressional District primary, is not pro-life. He says he’s personally pro-life, but the government should stay out. It’s worth extending an offer to talk, and see if he’s willing to make a solid commitment for Personhood, but it will be difficult to trust any such commitment.

Nevertheless, three of the seven candidates for districts in Congress are on record as supporting Personhood – Cory Gardner, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman – and there’s a chance either Tipton or Frazier may join with us later.

In the State House, a critical primary in a three way race was won by pro-Personhood Chris Holbert, who just barely beat a pro-abortion opponent with lots of money. He’s in a safe district, and his election in November is pretty much assured.

Another State House primary was won by pro-Personhood Ray Scott over his opponent who was widely believed to be pretending to be conservative, and who refused to sign on with Personhood.

In the State Senate, two Personhood candidates defeated their opponents. Kevin Grantham in Pueblo and Canon City won against a pro-abortion opponent. And in Pueblo itself Vera Ortegon won easily against her opponent who supported Personhood but who also had rape & incest exceptions.

Overall, 11 out of 19 Republicans running for the State Senate this year are pro-Personhood, and there may be more we don’t know about, or who will sign on later.

And in the House 17 out of 65 candidates are on record as supporting Personhood, but probably twice that actually do, and just haven’t gone on record.

Compared to just 2 years ago, there are probably twice as many candidates for the Legislature who are supporting Personhood and most of the Republicans at the top of the ticket (Senate, Governor, Congress) are supporting Personhood now whereas very few did so just 2 years ago.

The whole game has changed with regard to Personhood. With these key Republican figures supporting Personhood, it’s likely Amendment 62 will also do much better at the ballot box in November.

As a final note, as of Wednesday morning, please say a prayer for Georgia. The runoff for Governor of Georgia remains too close to call. Georgia Right to Life is a pro-Personhood ally, and they endorsed four of the five candidates for Governor in Georgia as pro-life, which to them means pro-Personhood. Karen Handel was the only Republican candidate who didn’t support Personhood, and she was one of two candidates in the August 10 Runoff. Handel also gave $1.2 million to Planned Parenthood as a county commissioner, and now claims she “had to” because they were supposedly the only vendor for womens’ health care. Her opponent, Nathan Deal, is pro-Personhood, and he has some ethics issues dogging him, but he remains the only candidate in the runoff who is pro-life.

The Folly of the "Big Tent"

Here's my response to a blogger who was pushing for the "Big Tent" for the Republican Party. It was the typical argument -- we can't win without the support of whole bunches of people who don't normally vote for the GOP, we can make more progress by building coalitions than by dividing into little groups, etc. It made alot of sense, of course, but also missed a critical dynamic in party and election politics.

I was discussing abortion politics, but the same argument could be made in favor of fiscally conservative politics, etc. But fiscally conservative politics cannot make up for offending and getting rid of moral conservatives. Bob Schaffer tried that in 2008 (stupidly, since he lost many Christian supporters while liberals remembered he had always been pro-life - he lost votes from his base without picking up any on the other side, which is the same problem the GOP in general faces), and Schaffer fell on his face.

My response:

I used to believe in a "big tent," but I've since learned its folly. Without principles, we get nowhere. Reagan didn't offer us a big tent -- he offered us principles, which were broadly appealing and which inspired those who might not otherwise agree with him to vote for him.

There was once a "big tent" party -- the Whigs -- which tried to appeal to northerners and southerners alike by not taking strong stands on controversial issues like slavery. Do you know what happened to them? Probably not, because unless you study the history of the period no one even remembers who they were. In actuality, they split into two parties.

Did both parties lose? Did both of these "third parties" devastate themselves by shedding the big tent, leaving their major party behind, and dividing over matters of misguided principles?

No. One of those parties -- the Republican Party -- came to dominate the politics of the next several decades. For 70 years, in fact, and for a great portion of the century afterward, too.

They stood on a major principle -- opposition to slavery -- which held such a broad appeal that they succeeded where the wishy-washy "big tent" party failed.

The Republican Party today has the opportunity to stand on another major, unifying principle which could inspire them to victory. They could pledge to ban abortion and recognize the Personhood of the unborn child so he or she is not considered property like the slaves.

The Republican Party will succeed or die on this principle. Any attempts to remove the pro-life principle from the platform (which is what "big tent" means, in almost all cases), will destroy the party so that a half-century from today the Republican Party will be as well known as the Whigs are today.

Those "divisive" Christian Conservatives are the base of the Republican Party (and, from what I've found, the base of the Tea Party conservatives too) -- they've handed victory to the GOP in 5 of the last 8 presidential elections, but they're feeling ignored and betrayed. The Republicans can take them or leave them. If they leave them, they will energize another party and make them victorious instead.