Owens vetos emergency contraception bill; Chris Gates drops
challenge; rural Coloradans worried about Patriot Act...what
else is on your mind?
« Is DeLay Getting What McInnis Has Coming? | Main | Strong Words From Beauprez on "Town Hall" »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Whatever slim hopes Owens had of higher office were crushed yesterday under the weight of a right-wing lunatic lobbying effort.
I'd love to run the campaign against him and his "Rapists Bill of Rights."
Posted by: Ralph | April 06, 2005 at 10:13 AM
Have you been under a rock? Owens has not been running for higher office for a year.
Posted by: wonderwoman | April 06, 2005 at 11:32 AM
Do you smoke crack rock? Republicans have been touting him for President for about five years.
Posted by: Ralph | April 06, 2005 at 11:38 AM
The operative phrase in your statement is "have been". He is no longer looking at President.
Posted by: wonderwoman | April 06, 2005 at 12:29 PM
Has anyone been following this story about the city of Longmont investigating a city employee for comments he made on a radio show?
One Glenn Spagnuolo was put on suspension with pay (he is now back at work) because of comments he made in defense of Ward Churchill. His comments have been spun into advocating violent revolution even though he was very clear about NOT advocating violence.
Posted by: Strider | April 06, 2005 at 02:16 PM
For the as-yet-uninformed, here's an article from the Longmont Times-Call.
It seems Mr. Spagnulo called into KHOW and someone recognized his voice. They called him, said they were with the police, and asked if he was the one that made the call into the radio show. Then he finds out he's under investigation at his government workplace, with an e-mail stating the radio show call as the cause...
No McCarthyism here. Move on, please. /sarcasm>
Posted by: Phoenix Rising | April 06, 2005 at 02:40 PM
Owens may not be running for higher office, but the veto still hurts the GOP. Lots of people who don't consider themselves pro-choice still favor abortion in the rare case of rape. Also, not many people outside the Catholic Church consider birth control pills, which is all that emergency contraception is, to be abortion. And, the overwhelming majority of people want birth control pills to be safe and legal.
Posted by: ohwilleke | April 06, 2005 at 03:00 PM
I've been thinking about the New Budget Plan that will be going to the voters. Who do you guys think will be running the campaigns for and against the proposal???
Posted by: Lurker | April 06, 2005 at 04:24 PM
The Independence Institute and Jon Caldara will be running a hard campaign with tons of money from Washington outsiders like Grover Norquist against the tax reduction proposal (reduces our state income taxes from 4.63% to 4.5%) that will secure our states long term prosperity.
We get to keep more of our money that gets to stay in our pocket from the beginning instead of playing this shell game of surpluses that may or may not be there in the future...what is the problem again with this tax reduction proposal?
Posted by: Bob | April 06, 2005 at 05:08 PM
ohwilleke,
It may hurt the GOP with some voters, but Owens had the guts to do what he believed was right, even if you do not agree with his decision. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't elect politicians who soley rely on sticking their finger in the wind to see which way the political winds are going.
Posted by: wonderwoman | April 06, 2005 at 05:10 PM
Bob, they took the tax rate cut out of the package, effectively. It doesn't come into effect for six years, after they've taken $3.2b. And even then it only acts as another TABOR refund mechanism. If and only if the TABOR limit is met does the tax rate reduction come into effect; if there are no refunds, there is no tax rate cut.
You can't call that a tax cut. It's an improvement over the current set of refund mechanisms, but it's a refund, not a tax cut. The government collects and keeps just as much money as before - it just refunds it in a different manner.
Posted by: in the know | April 06, 2005 at 06:57 PM
Please. Owens didn't veto the bill because he thought it was right - he did it because he had to appeal to the right wing wacko base of his after ditching them on TABOR. You can't universally say that this was "the right thing to do."
Posted by: Ter Ducken | April 06, 2005 at 07:14 PM
Ter Ducken, your argument doesn't make all that much sense. Owens doesn't need to appeal to the fringes of his base. He's too popular with the moderate and swing voters to need the fringe. And vetoing this bill does nothing but hurt his chances for ever being elected to anything again. You don't think this will get thrown at him if he runs for senate in 2008? This would dramatically hurt his chances, especially against Udall. And don't even mention that he's running for President - Ralph's insistence aside, that train left the station 18 months ago.
Posted by: joker | April 06, 2005 at 07:41 PM
Has anyone considered that Owens actually vetoed the bill because it really is unconstitutional?
Posted by: thinkin | April 06, 2005 at 09:16 PM
Yada yada.
The fact is that Owens and Dobson want to force women to bear the children of rapists. Two people in Colorado (and maybe Marilyn Musgrave) would agree with that.
The GOP in Colorado is so far right I think I can actually see them on my left.
Posted by: Ralph | April 07, 2005 at 09:32 AM
Come on, Ralph. Force women to bear the children of rapists? Whose talking points are you on?
Let's look at the facts. Because Catholics want to protect life as soon as the egg is fertilized, it would be against their faith for Catholic hospitals to promote this drug. Legislators tried to exempt Catholic hospitals with amendments because of this reason, but the D majority said our will is greater than their faith. Women can still go to any public hospital to receive care and this pill.
Despite your outlandish statements, rape victims can still choose their provider and level of treatment. Typical liberal scare tactics.
Posted by: Vic | April 07, 2005 at 10:25 AM
Come on, Ralph. Force women to bear the children of rapists? Whose talking points are you on?
Let's look at the facts. Because Catholics want to protect life as soon as the egg is fertilized, it would be against their faith for Catholic hospitals to promote this drug. Legislators tried to exempt Catholic hospitals with amendments because of this reason, but the D majority said our will is greater than their faith. Women can still go to any public hospital to receive care and this pill.
Despite your outlandish statements, rape victims can still choose their provider and level of treatment. Typical liberal scare tactics.
Posted by: Vic | April 07, 2005 at 10:28 AM
Yeah, us liberals are scary. You guys are the ones shooting abortion doctors and firebombing clinics.
This is EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION, not an abortion. YOU are the ones using bullshit arguments and scare tactics.
If Owens vetoes a bill that would provide information to women that emergency contraception is available, what conclusion can we come to other than he wants to force women to bear the children of rapists?
I bet I'll win that poll, Vic. We'll see November 2006.
Posted by: Ralph | April 07, 2005 at 11:13 AM
Nice work Ralph. I am apt to agree with you on this particular subject. Please don't lump me in with Ralph in pimping the great cultural war though.
"You guys are the ones shooting abortion doctors and firebombing clinics." Certainly there are people who are doing this, and they are horrible and despicable people. People can be with Owens concerning this bill for the same reasons as Owens, for their own reasons, or any other reason under the sun. This does not make them the type of person who shoots abortion doctors and firebombs clinics. In fact, I'm sure you'd find the vast majority to abhor that exact type of behavior. Equating these as the same and accusing people of such because they don’t feel the same way as you is quite lame.
Bob - I spit coffee everywhere after reading about the great tax reduction act of our generation. Keep it up!
Posted by: Jason | April 07, 2005 at 11:55 AM
Silly Ralph,
Yes, Republicans try to firebomb at least one abortion clinic and shoot two abortion doctors a week. We keep a scorecard down at the county party offices. I hear El Paso Republicans get a new toaster if they get three more clinics.
Your argument shows your lack of knowledge. It would be like me concluding that because Southern Democrats have lynched African Amreicans, then all Democrats must be guilty of the crime.
Please name one elected Republican who has ever supported the bombing of clinics or the killing of an abortion doctor.
Did you ever stop to consider that Owens was acting on his moral convictions? Are you ignorant enough to believe that a woman who is raped does not know that she has the right to get an abortion? Do you honestly think that Owens is in Dobson's pocket?
Kudos to whoever said theis quote, but it applies perfectly yo you Ralph. "It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it."
Posted by: wonderwoman | April 07, 2005 at 11:55 AM
"Are you ignorant enough to believe that a woman who is raped does not know that she has the right to get an abortion?"
This isn't about abortion (unless you're with the Catholics in believing that emergency contraception is abortion). I wonder how much flexibility someone who is taken to a hospital for rape treatment has... it's not like she's going to get a second rape treatment elsewhere, and if she's taken in by the cops, she might not be taken to her preferred place of treatment. Also (and this is ignorance showing) I wonder how many places have only a religious-affiliated hospital where they wouldn't otherwise notify the patient of this possibility...
Emergency contraception is very under-promoted, under-utilized, and misunderstood. It isn't something everyone would know. I think the bill was a good idea...
Posted by: Phoenix Rising | April 07, 2005 at 04:43 PM
America is free? We protect individual freedoms? What a crock of crap. Why is it so hard for others to understand? I will do what I want with my body.
Posted by: Chris | April 10, 2005 at 02:20 AM
I would like the Denver papers to list all the Catholic hospitals and their locations in the state. Also including which communities have no alternative hospital to Catholic institutions. Gov. Owens signing the EC bill was a terrible strike against women.
Posted by: Diane | April 10, 2005 at 11:30 AM