Why I Cannot Vote for “Personhood” Supporter Laura Woods

I confess that I tried not to look too closely at the Republican candidate for my Colorado senate district (number 19), Laura Woods, because I was afraid of what I might find. After gleefully witnessing the fall of Evie Hudack following her reckless, Bloomberg-inspired campaign against peaceable gun owners (after which Democrats replaced her with Rachel Zenzinger, now the Democratic candidate), I really wanted the seat to turn Republican.

After the fiascos of ObamaCare (implications of which played out in the state legislature), the Democrats’ persecution of gun owners, the Democrats’ war on energy producers and consumers, and other matters, this would have been an excellent year for the GOP to punish the Democrats and win back some seats. But, Republicans being Republicans (aka “The Stupid Party”), Republicans in my district nominated a candidate I cannot possible vote for.

Thus, just a couple of weeks after announcing I planned to vote a straight-Republican ticket, I now have to make an exception and declare that I cannot and will not vote for Laura Woods. The basic problem is that Woods enthusiastically endorses total abortion bans, including the insane and horrific “personhood” measure on the ballot this year.

(I won’t vote for Zenzinger either. I’ll probably just blank that vote, unless I can figure out how to write in “Turd Sandwich.”)

So congratulations to Mainstream Colorado, “Ashley Stevens, registered agent,” for prompting me to take a closer look at Woods and to thereby change my vote. (This is the first time I can recall in which a political ad has actually had any influence whatsoever on my voting.)

I’ll begin by reviewing a couple of campaign mailers I received from Mainstream. One ad cleverly borrows the language of the right by touting, “Freedom. Responsibility. Hard Work. These are the values Coloradans have cherished for generations.” The ad continues (in part), “Rachel Zenzinger believes women have the right to make their own health care decisions [but not their own self-defense decisions] with their family, their doctor and their faith—without government or bosses getting in the way.” Of course, the bit about “bosses” is a reference to the ObamaCare requirement forcing insurers to cover birth control. Although I don’t agree with Zenzinger on that issue, I definitely agree with her that women have a right to get an abortion.

Then comes the ad’s attack on Woods:

woodsa4

Laura Woods would take away a woman’s freedom to make her own health care decisions. . . . Laura Woods doesn’t think women are responsible enough to make their own decisions [except regarding their self-defense]. Woods supports an extreme plan that would ban all abortions, including in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. The plan would criminalize doctors who treat women and allow law enforcement to investigate women who suffer miscarriage. She even supports a constitutional amendment that could ban common forms of birth control.

Although some of that language is imprecise and incomplete, it is essentially correct.

A second ad from the outfit makes the same basic claims.

woodsb2

So what are the facts behind the claims in question? Colorado Campaign for Life claims, “Laura Woods answered her Colorado Campaign for Life Survey 100 pro-life (sic).” (The organization also likens Woods’s opponent, Lang Sias, to the baby murderer Kermit Gosnell.) And Colorado Right to Life, which asks candidates if they “oppose all abortion,” affirms that Woods “has rigorously affirmed she is pro-life (sic).” As CBS Denver reports, Woods is a “staunch supporter of the Personhood ballot issue.”

As for why women have a right to get an abortion (and to use the birth control and in vitro fertility treatments of their choice),  and for why the “personhood” measure is not about personhood and is indeed anti-life rather than “pro-life,” see the detailed paper on the matter by Diana Hsieh and me.

4 thoughts on “Why I Cannot Vote for “Personhood” Supporter Laura Woods

  1. Eric Rinard

    The most important part of my reply to this consists of six words: “Yes you can, and you must.”

    I will also confess to not looking too closely at my own State representative, whose views on social issues do not “defend liberty always” but who, at the same time, scores near the very top of the Principles of Liberty score card every year. Meanwhile, no Democrat in either the Colorado house or senate scored higher than 22.1 percent this year.

    In the prevailing 2-party system, any partisan general election will have two imperfect candidates, one of whom will be elected in virtually every case. So instead of voting FOR the “lesser evil” we are in a position to vote AGAINST the “greater evil.”

    All lovers of liberty must come to grips with this inescapable fact. – before it is too late.

  2. kfreed

    How is denying women birth control your idea of “liberty” or “small government” for that matter?

    And please explain how this Koch-sponsored model legislation is “pro-liberty or pro-middle class: http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

    All of these model bills are for the benefit of the filthy rich at our expense.

  3. kfreed

    Ari, you need to read the “New Right’s” (fundamentalist religious right) Manifesto. They discuss how to use Libertarians:

    Paul Weyrich’s Teaching Manual:
    http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/FreeCongressEssay.html

    Do you recognize the “liberty” agenda from this 1982 Religious Roundtable video?

    Christian Right activist Paul Weyrich (Moral Majority) can be seen in this video: “Life and Liberty for All who Beleive”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is_fhyhbAa4

    Their idea of “liberty” is “unique,” to put it mildly. I’d like to think that you all have a conscience and the intelligence to understand what these folks are up to.

Comments are closed.