A Personhood-Friendly Legislature

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?

2012 Election Cycle Starts

It's that time of year again, when candidates need money for their campaigns, and because of the complex campaign-finance rules in Colorado, many grass roots candidates rely upon "political committees" to get alot of their funding from individual supporters who can't give more than a relatively small amount themselves. Such committees pool the resources of many different donors for a common purpose.

At the head of two political committees, I have a history of supporting only strong, credible conservative candidates. Pro-life, pro-gun, fiscal conservatives who also support the liberties and limitations upon government that conservatives have come to view as sacred in this day of intensive, INTRUSIVE government control.

In the 2010 election cycle, my committees supported names you will be familiar with as conservative stalwarts in the legislature -- Rep. Chris Holbert from Parker and Sen. Kevin Grantham from Canon City. Both had primary elections against less conservative opponents, and both are now newly elected, but have already earned their stripes following their convictions in the legislature.

Your donation to the Conservative Renewal Fund today will help a new crop of freshman conservatives get to where YOU want them to be! Please help with a donation of up to $50 to the Conservative Renewal Fund (CRF), and ask your friends and club members to donate also (to magnify your collective voice). If you feel moved to contribute more than $50 to the cause, please also support my "political committee" -- Colorado Conservative Action -- which has the ability to take more money at a time ($550 per election cycle -- only $500 if you've already donated to CRF) but has tighter limits on how much it can give to each candidate, which means the money gets spread further to different conservative candidates.

Please call me at 720-301-4270 if you have further questions. Please note that these committees can only support candidates for state office or state legislative offices, not for Congress or President, etc. This is grass roots politics for grass roots candidates.

Thank you for your support!

Ed Hanks

Analysis of Colorado Primary Results

Here is a blog post from my other blog, highlighting some of the candidates the Conservative Renewal Fund wants to support, with your help (the state-level candidates -- CRF is unable to donate to federal level candidates):

Please Donate just $50 to Help these Conservatives! Please send checks of no more than $50 written to Conservative Renewal Fund, Attn: Ed Hanks, 1005 Northridge Rd., Littleton, CO 80126

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.

Please Donate just $50 to Help these Conservatives!

Welcome to the Conservative Renewal Authority!

Please Donate just $50 to Help Conservatives!

I have been involved in Colorado politics for a long time, and never have I seen a more promising opportunity for the conservative movement than now!

The strength of reaction against the headlong lurch of this country toward socialism under Obama now in 2010 is very like what we saw in 1978, as Jimmy Carter showed us how bad things could get. That means the scene is set for a Ronald Reagan, too.

Now, I'll be honest. Unlike many in the movement, I don't see who he or she is, yet. There is no "standout" on the national scene whose conservative credentials I really trust. But we're ready when they come.

In the meantime, it's important to have a strong foundation at home.

In Colorado, we've seen our own version of Obama-lite, and it hasn't set well with the population as a whole. The opportunity exists here too -- THIS year.

The Conservative Renewal Fund (CRF) stands ready to play a role in supporting this "farm team" of conservatives here in the Rocky Mountains.

CRF is a "small donor committee," registered with the Secretary of State's office, which means I can accept small donations of $50 or less from any person (and a recent Supreme Court ruling may mean that "person" can include a business - if you're interested in donating as a business ask me and I'll look it up for sure) during this election cycle. I can take $50 from each person in your household. There's no requirement that you must live in Colorado, though you MUST be a US citizen.

The rules also say I must split that money up in amounts of approximately $2,000 to each candidate. Fortunately, I know already there are at least a dozen legislative candidates who are solid conservatives, plus some promising candidates running for statewide office. But they do need this money.

If you want to donate money to candidates who are certified, committed, principled conservatives, CRF is a great place to donate. Certainly, I encourage you to donate to individual candidates, too. But there is an added "multiplicative factor" from donating to a small donor committee that adds to your voice. I promise, as registered agent for CRF, that I will check these people out on their conservative principles using my "highly developed" senses for detecting evasion or subterfuge.

What are MY standards for THEM to stand by?

There is no right more fundamental than the Right to Life. If the government thinks it can kill you, then you HAVE no other rights. I will only support candidates who can think clearly about pro-life issues, and that includes support for this year's Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment to protect unborn children from conception forward.

If you cannot defend yourself against those who think they have the power to take from you, then you don't really have many other rights to exercise either. The God-given right to keep and bear arms is meant to be guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and we've got some "shoring up" to do on this front! Other amendments are supposed to guarantee the God-given right to property ("Thou shalt not steal") and freedom from search and seizure (yes, God forbids kidnapping too).

And if the 10th Amendment were being more strongly adhered to, these things would not be so out of balance as they are.

None of these rights I've already listed has been adequately protected by our leaders in Washington or Denver, and I sense a reticence even among traditional Republican leaders to protect them. We need a new generation of leaders who have the guts to make America the country it was meant to be by our God-fearing Founding Fathers.

Fiscal conservatism goes without saying. The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights protected Colorado citizens for many years until it was compromised, first, by Republicans and then subsequently shredded by Democrats. Who's going to stand up again for the Citizen?

Illegal immigration is a concern for all. I have no problem with illegal immigrants themselves, except for the fact that they're breaking the law. Laws should be enforced if they're just (i.e. fair, right, correct) laws, and gotten rid of if they're not. Border security is a just law, and we need to treat both, our citizens and our non-citizens "justly."

There are many other issues which I might consider, but these are the highlights. Fortunately, though in years past we might not have seen alot of candidates who were serious about these issues, this year has brought out a number of very promising citizen leaders, and I hope you will enable me to support them on your behalf.

In case you're wondering about my qualifications to judge, I did serve at the Capitol for 7 years in public relations roles with both, the Governor's Office and the State House. But I DID NOT drink the rust-tainted water (no, seriously -- don't drink from the Capitol water fountains!). I've also been associated with the Colorado Republican Assembly, which is a group of committed conservatives within the GOP.

I have training and experience in campaign management, messsaging and campaign strategy, as well as in understanding every angle of the issues, and I can tell if someone knows what they're talking about and whether they have a fair chance of winning. I can even help them out with advice and counsel if they need it.

I'm not against supporting principled long-shot candidates, but I'll concentrate the money I'm entrusted with for maximum long-term effect, and that means selecting for both, principle and viability.

Lastly, I'll mention that I have also registered a "political committee" -- Colorado Conservative Action (CCA) -- which can accept larger donations ($525 per person), but can only give a fraction as much money per candidate than CRF can. You CAN donate to both, CCA and the Renewal Fund.

Frankly, since a Small Donor Committee (this one) can distribute money in larger chunks than a political committee, $50 donated here will probably have more impact than $100 donated to CCA. Please consider donating here first, and if you can donate more, go to CCA.

I would be blessed to be YOUR agent to support these worthy candidates. Please donate to help them out!

Sincerely,

Ed Hanks
720-301-4270