Colorado Personhood Amendment 62 files suit to block state from distributing false info

This afternoon CO Personhood Amendment 62 proponents filed a lawsuit against the CO Legislative Counsel to stop it from distributing ~3 million voter guides called the Blue Book, which are supposed to provide a “fair and impartial analysis” of ballot measures.

PA62 proponents charge in their suit the Blue Book is “glaringly biased” against the measure and contains false information.

For months PA62 proponents have been wrangling with the Legislative Counsel over the “Arguments for” and “Arguments against” sections.

Ultimately, the counsel rejected every single one of their suggestions while including suggestions by opponents for both the “for” and “against” sections  – most of it utter nonsense (see pages 16,17).

There is also a conflict of interest. Attorney Kevin Paul is legal counsel to Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

Meanwhile Paul sits on the Secretary of State’s Best Practices and Vision Commission, which advises Blue Book writers.

It’s always something, and it’s always uphill.

20 thoughts on “Colorado Personhood Amendment 62 files suit to block state from distributing false info”

  1. The reasons for section sounds pretty pro-life and straightforward to me…
    1) Amendment 62 ensures that all human life is afforded equal protection under law.
    2) The measure may establish the legal foundation to end the practice of abortion in Colorado.
    3) Amendment 62 establishes a consistent, non-subjective legal definition of the term “person”

    It’s the reasons against that are, as usual, total BS.  Limiting treatment for miscarriages?  The idea that “the beginning of biological development cannot be easily and conclusively pinpointed”?  Give me a break!

  2. Amendment 62 allows government intrusion in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship and could limit the exercise of independent medical judgment.
     
    Riiiiiiiiiiight.  And Obamacare DOESN’T?
     
    And ever notice when pro-lifers talk about the abortificient affect of hormonal BC, pro-abortion advocates whine about there being no evidence of that? Yet when pro-lifers talk about personhood, the same pro-aborts are the first to talk about BC and EC?

  3. Yes, Cranky!
    Which is it?  Selling the pill ~ “not abortifacient.”
    If A62 passes ~ “it will ban all “contraception”!
    They need to read the literature enclosed with every package ~ one of the mechanisms
    prevents a living, growing embryo from implanting.

  4. Once again, a waste of time.  Are all prolifers born this way, or do they have to be taught how to be stupid?  I hope this thing fails by 60 points.

  5. No, Joe, there is no lying.   You want to give a zygote the same protection as a born human being?  It won’t pass because it’s proposed by nutjobs.

  6. Charles,
    Does your conscience have no shred of mercy left for the 4 K tiny babies being
    dismembered in our nation every day of the week?

  7. Jerry:
    Uh, YEAH. Because this “zygote” is a separate human being and calling it a “zygote” does not negate his or her humanity and personhood. So yes, born or not born, all human beings have the right to not be killed. Not to mention that by the time a woman takes her pregnancy test, the child is farther along in his development than any pro-abort will admit. You’re either a person, or you’re not. To say that “born” humans are more valuable than unborn humans is like saying “a human being in the living room is more valuable than a human being in the dining room.” Or “People in England are more valuable than people in France.” Or “People who are 25 are more valuable than people who are six years old.” Or “People who are awake are more valuable than people who are sleeping.” Or “People who have Down’s Syndrome are less valuable than people who do not,”….Oh wait, you guys already believe that.

    Functionalism and moral relativism are not firm foundations on which to build your argument, which is already flimsy beyond belief.

  8. The above post by “Jerry” does not reflect my sentiments. (Apparently more than one person can have the same moniker on this blog??).
     

  9. Exploring “Jerry’s” 9:31 comment really tells us a lot about  the thinking that goes on in pro-abort circles. Or, actually, we would more correctly say the lack of thinking.
     
    First, the use of words as “nutjobs” and other derogatory terminology is a typical pro-abort tactic. They cannot allow their opposites in the debate a scintilla of credibility. How could they, because if even for a second they allow that a human life is at stake here they cede the moral high ground of social and environmental progressivism that is supposed to lead us all to a utopian existence free of unwanted humans and millions upon millions of additional polluters.
     
    Second, because of their arrogance, the high-minded pro-aborts assign to themselves the right to impose their world view and morality on tiny humans that cannot speak for themselves, claiming for example that a zygote is unworthy of any kind of protection under the law.
     
    Third, these same pro-aborts who themselves will not be silenced mock efforts of others who simply wish to exercise their political rights in a democracy. Pro-aborts it seems are chagrined that they even have to deal with such things–abortion being “settled law” and the such. These knuckle draggers and tea party types are just too much!
     

  10. Well said Jerry.
    “First, the use of words as “nutjobs” and other derogatory terminology is a typical pro-abort tactic. They cannot allow their opposites in the debate a scintilla of credibility. How could they, because if even for a second they allow that a human life is at stake here they cede the moral high ground of social and environmental progressivism that is supposed to lead us all to a utopian existence free of unwanted humans and millions upon millions of additional polluters.”
    Right from the Margaret Sanger/Al Gore/Barack Hussein Obama/Democrartic platform, or should I say manifesto.

  11. God help us to remove these ones from power this Novemeber and forevermore. It is really frightening to have Barack Hussein (alias Barry Millhouse)Obama appointing justices to the SCOTUS.

  12. So what do the polls seem to say about A62? Of course, I hope it passes, but does it look like it will? Does it seem realistic at all? I would appreciate an actual answer to this question and not some comment about nutjobs please.

  13. I am personally against abortion, but this has to be a personal choice.  We need to promote education, teach sex ed in school and offer free condoms for teens who are likely to be having sex.  We can do so much more to reduce the numbers of teen pregnancy – and that is the key to lowering the rate of abortions.

    Just remember-if this passes, and a teen gets pregnant, and a ‘back alley’ abortion goes bad,  the blood will be on your hands!!

  14. If the choice is a confused high school student and a fetus in the first month of development, I am comfortable with my choice.

    So you are in favor of making a pregnant woman a second class citizen?  Can she drink alcohol, smoke, work?  ….  driving a car is dangerous.   Where do you draw the line at protecting the fetus?

Comments are closed.