Anti-Abortion Colorado Republican Candidate Tries to Pass Himself Off As Pro-Choice

 

Bob Beauprez, the Republican candidate for governor of Colorado, just joined a growing club of GOP politicians—including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Senate hopeful Scott Brown of New Hampshire—who have grossly misrepresented their stance on women’s reproductive rights.

In an interview aired Wednesday on Colorado Public Radio, Beauprez, a former congressman, struck a decidedly pro-choice note when asked about abortion and birth control. He said he would not stand in the way of women having access to abortions, nor would he interfere with women choosing what kind of birth control to use. “I respect people’s opinion, women’s right to that choice,” he said. He later added, “I don’t want to run somebody else’s family and make decisions for their family, their life; I want them to have the opportunity and the freedom to do that themselves.”

Here’s the full exchange (listen to the audio above):

CPR: On women’s reproductive health, as governor would you be committed to your current stated position that while you’re personally against abortions, you won’t stand in the way of people having access to them or letting women choose their preferred method of birth control?

Bob Beauprez: That’s correct. I respect people’s opinion, women’s right to that choice. I know what the law is. And my job is to enforce the law. The question of birth control has come up and let me be real clear…I think women ought to have the choice of whether to use birth control or not. I think women ought to have the choice of what type of birth control to use. I just don’t think taxpayers need to be paying for it.

I respect people’s right to choose. I live my life the way I personally choose, but I’m not going to interfere with somebody else’s. The job of a governor is less to govern the people, and more to govern the government. I don’t want to make somebody else’s decision, but I want them to have every opportunity to make their own. I don’t want to run somebody else’s family and make decisions for their family, their life; I want them to have the opportunity and the freedom to do that themselves. That’s the kind of governor I’ll be.

Right to that choicehave the choiceright to choosethe way I choose: Beauprez almost sounds like a Planned Parenthood activist. But his legislative record and past statements couldn’t be more at odds with his seemingly pro-choice comments.

In 2005, then-Rep. Beauprez cosponsored the Right to Life Act, a measure that guaranteed “equal protection for the right to life of each born and pre-born human person.” The bill defined life beginning with “the moment of fertilization,” and could severely restrict abortions. In Colorado Right-to-Life’s 2006 voter guide, he said he supported a constitutional amendment to “restore full protection to pre-born human beings.” That same year, he asserted—incorrectly—that the abortion rate for black women was an “appalling” 70 percent. (The actual rate at the time, according to the Guttmacher Institute, was 49 per 1,000—or 4.9 percent.) And in 2013, in a column on TownHall.com, he urged all Americans to reconcile the “tragedies” of abortions just as they reconciled the mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut.

As a gubernatorial candidate, Beauprez has not wavered from his decidedly anti-abortion position. He continues to say that he opposes all forms of abortion, even in cases of rape and incest unless the mother’s life is at risk. He bragged to an interviewer in March about his “100 percent pro-life voting record.” He also claims that an IUD is an abortifacient, not contraception. Beauprez has not said how he’d act on these beliefs, though he says he would eliminate all state funding for Planned Parenthood.

But anyone listening to his recent Colorado Public Radio interview might think that Beauprez was a supporter of a woman’s right to choose, just as Scott Walker and Scott Brown sought to imply in their own sneaky ads on the issue. Pro-choice women are a key voting bloc that Beauprez needs to win—and he appears willing to distort his record to get their votes.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate