Although speakers referenced recent national clashes that have dominated headlines and are shaping presidential campaigns, the rallies were just the latest chapter in what has become a typical Colorado election-year war story, where Christian conservative forces vie with progressive political forces for the support of the swing-state citizenry.

Battles have already erupted on several fronts in Colorado. State Republican lawmakers are pushing an “offense against the unborn” personhood bill and a health-coverage related “religious freedom” bill. Anti-abortion Personhood USA, based in Arvada, is attempting to amend the state constitution with a ballot initiative. And a high-profile Republican primary in deep-red El Paso County is presently turning on accusations that one of the candidates is soft on abortion.

Indeed, one of the themes threading through the speeches at the “Rally to Protect Women’s Health,” which was organized by Planned Parenthood and the anti-personhood initiative Protect Families, Protect Choice coalition, was that the state and the country by extension were “at a crossroads” on reproductive rights, as Denver Democratic Representative Crisanta Duran put it.

She said women should refuse to allow people like “Rush Limbaugh to come between the decisions [that pass] between them and their doctors.”

“It is unbelievable that in the year 2012, the year 2012, there is an attack on one of the most fundamental and important rights to women, the right to make her own health care choices… We are living at a time in which House Bill 1130 will be debated in the building behind me, [a bill] that seeks to define personhood in our statutes and chip away at women’s rights. We are living at a time in which radical individuals are bringing forth divisive measures…”

Vicki Cowart, president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, opened the rally on a note of sympathetic exasperation.

“Like so many women across this country, I am outraged and I am perplexed. What is going on with this birth control debate in this country? We are used to Roe being a target. We are used to anti-choice politicians … but these days they’re going after birth control. They’re going after access to basic health care. What is up with that? It’s 2012. It is long past the time to be debating these issues.”

Colorado State University senior Meagan Como said she was “shocked and appalled” at the political attacks on women coming from the right.

Referencing the recent national controversy tied to the congressional testimony of Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University student Rush Limbaugh called a “slut” and a “prostitute” for advocating on behalf of reproductive health insurance, Como played the role of fact-checker, specifically calling out state Senator Greg Brophy, R-Wray, Limbaugh’s main local defender.

“I, like 99 percent of women, take birth control. While Senator Brophy would have you believe that taking birth control is something that I do recreationally, I would like to point out that 58 percent of women take birth control for something other than preventing pregnancies. I am also one of those women… I have low levels of clotting in my blood. It means that if I am injured, I would take much longer to heal than most of you. My doctors prescribe birth control to me to increase these clotting factors… As I’m sure most of you know, birth control is considered a normal treatment for [many conditions], including endometriosis and ovarian cysts. Birth control is basic preventative care…

“These political efforts to limit basic health care are an attack on family planning. It is an attack on women’s access to health care.”

The speakers at the rally argued a radical fringe that includes Republican lawmakers is attempting to hold back mainstream momentum building over the course of a century toward greater acceptance of women’s sexuality and of the need for the full range of contemporary healthcare services that go with it.

“At this point, I think [this debate] is hurting Republicans,” Michael Cummings, political science professor at the University of Colorado- Denver, told the Colorado Independent as the rally wrapped up. He said the positions being advanced on these issues by Republican lawmakers and candidates shouldn’t be viewed outside of the theater that is electoral politics.

“I’m dismayed but I’m not shocked [by the Republican proposals],” he said. “Ultimately, though, I think it’s undermining. Fifty-three percent of voters in the United States are women. The vast majority of women, even the vast majority of Republicans, supports access to birth control.”

Cummings views the current debate as a product of the “inept government” produced by the gerrymandered congressional districts that have come to divide the country into a partisan patchwork. In that light, he said, anti-contraception and invasive ultra-sound legislation, for example, although very serious in the pockets of the country where such legislation is passing into law, is really about show, not about policy.

In Colorado, it would be a hard case to argue against this year.

The state “personhood” and “religious freedom” bills will not make it past the Democrat-controlled Senate nor, if they did, would they be signed by the Democratic governor.

Personhood USA tried and failed by wide margins to pass its ballot initiative here in 2008 and 2010. In the event it gains enough signatures to make it onto the ballot again this year, it will very likely be voted down.

And the El Paso County Republican candidate accused of being soft on abortion is House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, a former employee of Christian-right empire Focus on the Family and the author of a popular abstinence-only sex education manual. The tenuousness of the accusation, which is that the healthcare-exchange bill Stephens sponsored in the House last year would provide tax money for abortions, suggests how commonplace that accusation has become, a cudgel to be wielded from the right in any political contest– even in a contest waged in the farthest corner of the right half of the ring.

[ Top image: Colorado Sens Morgan Carroll, D-Denver, and Lucia Guzman, D-Denver. ]

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Today, primary-rival Newt Gingrich’s super PAC, Winning Our Future, launched a video that fits, like attack-campaign yin and yang, with a video launched by the Democratic National Committee in November.

“Think you know Mitt. He claims to be pro-life,” says the ad narrator. The comes footage of Romney when he was running for governor of Massachusetts in which he unabashedly supports abortion rights and the right of minors seeking abortions to win consent from judges rather than their parents.

The DNC ad is similarly foreboding, complete with dark music and blood-red text underliner.

The inevitable left and right attacks on Romney’s stands on abortion actually serve to dampen the urgency to know where he stands on the issue because they underscore the larger, main issue of the Romney candidacy, which is the fact that no one can be sure what Romney thinks from one moment to the next about major policy issues, including one of the most charged political issues of the contemporary American life.

Romney mostly avoided campaigning in Iowa caucuses in the fall because the predominant evangelical Christian Republican voters there make social issues a top priority.

South Carolina primary voters are similarly concerned with issues like gay marriage and abortion but the state has become a key southern peg in the GOP nomination contest, too important to coast through. A multimillionaire former private equity CEO, Romney’s strategy so far has been to veer to discussion about the economy, or more accurately, to discussion of President Obama’s “socialism” and “politics of class envy.”

Romney decided to avoid altogether a voter Q&A forum hosted today in South Carolina by Colorado-based Personhood USA. Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are all slated to attend.

The forum questions Romney would have faced were sure to be loaded.

Romney has refused to sign a pledge sponsored by Personhood USA and, according to the group, is “the only Republican Presidential Candidate who is not participating in the Presidential Prolife Forum, and the only candidate who has not signed Personhood USA’s Prolife Presidential Pledge.”

Romney told Mike Huckabee on Fox News in November that he “absolutely” would “support the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception.” Huckabee was talking unequivocaly about personhood. It is that exchange that fueled the November DNC attacks.

Romney drew fire last year for refusing to sign an anti-abortion pledge sponsored by the Susan B. Anthony List, a Washington-based advocacy group. He said the pledge was “overly broad” and published his own version on his website. He espoused support for the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion, and promised that, as president, he would “support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Media outlets and organizations on the left and right are already trying without success to nail down Coffman and Tipton on the issue. Calls to both representatives placed by the Colorado Independent went unanswered this week. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains spokesperson Monica McCafferty told the Independent her organization has yet to get either congressman to go on the record. Likewise, a Colorado Right to Life staffer told the Independent that her organization had no news to relate on lawmakers’ positions.

“[T]he only info we have right now is a reminder to you that supporting the dismembering of unborn children is a crime against humanity and against God for which some day all pro-choice people will answer,” wrote a staffer named Donna.

The lack of information on where the lawmakers stand is telling. Colorado Right to Life is diligent in getting elected officials to go on the record. The group’s questionnaires go out early and often and the CRTL blog includes an exhaustive list of where state and federal candidates stand on abortion rights.

In 2010, the group raised doubts about Coffman’s commitment to ending abortion, citing his absent support for federal personhood measures. And the group flagged Tipton as untrustworthy on the issue, reporting that he avoided responding to the organization’s surveys over the last three years.

“[Tipton] has lied to us and others about having responded… His website says he is pro-life but he approves of abortion in cases of rape or incest. Scott Tipton is NOT PRO LIFE and is lying in order to get your vote!”

The latest Colorado personhood initiative, pushed by Personhood USA, the Colorado-based national organization, has just won a ballot title setting over objections. Opponents have filed suit to have the title language reviewed. Assuming the initiative backers aren’t held up in court, they will have to collect roughly 76,000 valid signatures of support from Coloradans.

The initiative would grant full legal rights to fertilized human eggs, outlawing abortion in all cases as well as some of the most popular forms of birth control, including the pill. It could also endanger biomedical research and the fertilization industry in the state. Coloradans defeated the proposal in landslides in 2008 and 2010.

A personhood ballot initiative pushed in Mississippi was roundly defeated this year but supporters of the initiative say they are taking the fight to the state legislature there and believe they have enough support among lawmakers to place a personhood law on the books.

Mississippi already has passed some of the nation’s most strict anti-abortion laws, raising questions over the need for yet another stiff statute.

Laws on the books there include “a mandatory waiting period and a requirement that doctors perform ultrasounds on pregnant women to discourage abortions…. Mississippi only has one abortion clinic,” reports the Hattiesburg American, “So, one might wonder, what’s the point? Everything that can legally be done to discourage abortion has been done.”

As personhood supporters are quick to concede, getting a personhood law on the books is mainly part of a legal strategy aimed at overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v Wade decision.

Nearly all of the major Republican candidates for president this year support personhood.

In a recent appearance with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Cecil Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, discussed how extreme mainstream Republicans have become on the topic of women’s reproductive health, where the the question has moved beyond abortion to contraception.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“Used to be in the Republican primary, the whole question was whether you wanted to overturn Roe or not. Now, that’s not good enough. Everyone is for ending access to birth control,” Richards said.

Richards pointed out how difficult it would be to win over women in a general election once a candidate goes on record that he or she is in favor of outlawing the pill.

In 2008 most Republican candidates in Colorado opposed personhood as “too extreme” but, in the Tea Party campaigns of 2010, all of the major Republican candidates for office supported personhood, at least during the primary season. Senate candidate Ken Buck backpedaled during the general election campaign, saying he didn’t understand that personhood laws would ban popular birth control methods.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Colorado voters have twice rejected such measures by large margins. Even Mississippi voters earlier this month shot down a similar bill.

Below is video of Monday’s announcement, including questions and answers after the announcement. The video was filmed by Ari Armstrong.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, always a strong voice for choice, issued the following statement after Personhood USA and Personhood Colorado announced their plans:

“I was deeply disappointed by the announcement today that anti-choice advocates are once again trying to get a “personhood” amendment question on Colorado’s 2012 ballot. Colorado voters have repeatedly said no to this proposal, knowing that it would ban some fertility treatments and many forms of FDA-approved birth control methods, including IUD’s and common birth control pills. It would also ban legal abortion in all cases, even for victims of rape or incest or when the woman’s life is in danger.

“This is an extreme and radical agenda. And those pushing this agenda seem to want to ignore that Coloradans have already voted down such an initiative twice. As does Mitt Romney, who recently committed to supporting a personhood amendment despite previous promises to the contrary. Though Romney once said, “let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose” and said that in his “heart of hearts” rape victims “should have the option of having emergency contraception,” he now supports taking away those rights and protections he recently “believed” in.

“I am confident Colorado voters will again say no to this proposal and to any politicians who support it.”

Colorado Democratic Party Chair Rick Palacio released this statement:

“Yet again, Republicans are pushing an extreme social agenda that Colorado voters have consistently and overwhelmingly rejected. Twice already, Coloradans have considered a so-called “personhood” amendment to the state constitution, and after learning about the dire consequences for women’s health, voters have said no by nearly 3 to 1 margins.

“Coloradans understand that abortion is a difficult subject, and an even more difficult decision for a woman to make. While people have a right to hold deeply personal feelings about the subject of choice, Coloradans agree that it’s a decision to be left to a woman based on her own conscience and faith. They find it completely unacceptable for an outside group to dictate decisions about birth control or about choice in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. This is why voters have overwhelmingly said no to these efforts in the past.

“Mitt Romney and his fellow Republican Presidential candidates should know by now that pandering to the extremists in their Tea Party base doesn’t appeal to the average Coloradan. And after the latest version of Romney said he “absolutely” supports the radical efforts of Personhood USA and other extreme groups, he will have a lot to explain to Colorado voters. Then again, we should probably expect yet another Romney flip-flop.”

Personhood USA co-founder Keith Mason (Pic via personhoodusa.com)

Personhood USA, the group behind ballot initiatives that aim to define life as beginning at the moment of conception, has unveiled a new video, comparing its efforts to ban abortion to the civil rights movement.

Fresh off the sound defeat of Mississippi’s “fetal personhood” amendment, Personhood supporters remain undeterred. But their attempts to grant legal status to human embryos have been controversial, with even ardent anti-abortion activists opposing personhood initiatives.

According to a voiceover in Personhood USA’s new video, personhood is “the recognition that all human life is precious, that every person has the right to life, from their earliest biological creation to natural death.”

Though it may sound simply like another attempt to ban abortion, personhood initiatives would ban much more, including some forms of birth control, intra-uterine devices and, potentially, in-vitro fertilization procedures.

Like many groups in the anti-abortion community, personhood often makes allusions to slavery and civil rights. The group’s new video shows footage of Martin Luther King Jr. while declaring personhood to be “the new civil rights movement of the 21st century.”

In a recent interview with The Florida Independent, Personhood Florida’s Bryan Longworth made a similar comparison, opining that, just like William Wilberforce, he and other Personhood supporters would remain steadfast in their quest to see an amendment on the state’s 2014 ballot.

“We’re not deterred by [defeat in Mississippi.] We’re following the William Wilberforce pattern,” said Longworth. “He didn’t win the first time, didn’t win the second time, the third time … but he kept trying.”

Watch the newly released video from Personhood USA:

“I was extremely concerned when I saw that Romney embraced [proposed state-constitution personhood amendments]. It’s extreme legislation and it’s deceptive. It goes far beyond anti-choice,” DeGette told reporters on a conference call. She underlined the fact that personhood initiatives would outlaw birth control pills and would place in jeopardy millions in private and public money being invested in medical stem cell research.

Coloradans have roundly voted down personhood measures twice at the ballot box in recent elections, she said.

“I think voters in Colorado reject this. Families dealing with parkinsons and diabetes and alzheimers, they’re not in favor of passing edgy bills that endanger [the search for cures].”

Palacio said the fact that the GOP presidential frontrunner has now come out in support of personhood will rightly focus more attention on the groups pushing personhood and the kind of laws they seek every year to write into state constitutions.

“Personhood places the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims,” he said, referring to the fact that personhood initiatives would outlaw abortion in all cases. There would be no exceptions for rape or incest or if the life of the mother were in danger.

“Voters have to know how dangerous these [laws] are.”

Palacio pointed out that Colorado voters during the Republican wave election of 2010 rejected the U.S. Senate candidacy of Republican Ken Buck due in part, he said, to the fact that Buck embraced personhood and admitted he would support a complete ban on abortion in all cases.

Critics of the personhood measure proposed for Colorado in 2010 argued that it would shut down large parts of the thriving biomedical research industry here. Not just stem cell research but basic fertilization research and practices would suffer. In-vitro fertilization, for example, would be outlawed. Legal analysts said the laws would force the state constitution to be altered in hundreds of instances. Pregnant women who used drugs or drank too much or otherwise endangered the fertilized eggs they were carrying could be confined. Penalties for damaging or destroying fertilized eggs would have to be written and funds allocated to cover related difficult to enforce laws.

Asked about the legal consequences of the initiative, Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA, said he would “worry about the [legal] details later,” after the bill had passed.

Yet Buck wasn’t the only Republican candidate last year to support personhood. Although in 2008 most Colorado Republican candidates rejected personhood as extreme, in 2010 nearly every major Republican candidate in the state embraced the proposed amendment. Fourth District Republican Cory Gardner told Tea Party supporters that he was passing out the personhood petition at his church. Gardner won a seat in Congress and has voted for a slew of sweeping anti-abortion bills passed by the GOP-controlled Congress this year.

Beyond Colorado, the national Democratic Party is pushing hard to highlight Romney’s support for personhood, betting the vast majority of voters will shy away from electing a president who will work both to outlaw birth control pills and risk resurrecting the blackmarket abortion industry.

Democratic National Committee launched a video campaign this week and Executive Director Patrick Gaspard sent a letter to supporters going hard at Romney on the issue.

“Personhood” amendments are the notorious measures now being considered in states like Mississippi, Florida, and Ohio, that would elevate a fertilized human egg to the status of a legal person. They would ban IUDs, the morning-after pill, in-vitro fertilization, and all abortions — with no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or in cases where the life of a woman is at stake…

“If Romney wants to take the position that abortion and birth control are equal to murder, that’s up to him, but we’ll hold him accountable for it, and not let anyone forget that he’s made the choice to go this far to the right on this issue.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The Personhood Mississippi logo (Pic via Facebook)

Despite past statements to the contrary, some “fetal personhood” supporters are now admitting that, if enacted, their legislation would likely not only outlaw abortion, but some forms of birth control, as well.

Supporters of Mississippi’s “personhood” bill have long argued that it would only outlaw abortion, but many critics say that the vague wording of Amendment 26 (which would give fertilized human eggs legal status) would likely outlaw birth control pills. Speaking with NPR’s Diane Rehm yesterday, Personhood spokesperson Walter Hoye stated that if birth control ends the life of a “human being,” it would indeed be impacted by the measure.

When asked if there were any restrictions on birth control included in the amendment, Hoye said “no… well, yes,” but added that some forms of birth control (including the morning-after pill) would be outlawed.

From NPR’s Diane Rehm Show:

Hoye: Any birth control that ends the life of a human being will be impacted by this measure.

Rehm: So that would then include the IUD [intra-uterine device]. What about the birth control pill?

Hoye: If that falls into the same category, yes.

Rehm: So you’re saying that the birth control pill could be considered as taking the life of a human being?

Hoye: I’m saying that once the egg and the oocyte come together and you have that single-celled embryo, at that point you have human life, you’ve got a human being and we’re taking the life of a human being with some forms of birth control and if birth control falls into that category, yes I am.

Hoye, who is the president of the Issues4Life Foundation (a group that has erected anti-abortion billboards aimed specifically at African-Americans) also told Rehm that in vitro fertilization would not be affected by the passage of the bill, despite objections to the contrary.

Later during the show, Suzanne Novak, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, argued that the passage of Amendment 26 would put women at risk for criminal prosecution if they suffered a miscarriage.

“If a woman, let’s say, has exercised too much, or gotten in a car accident, if her fertilized egg is considered a person and, for any reason, she was at fault, she could be prosecuted for initiating that miscarriage,” she said, citing a recent case in Iowa where a woman fell down a flight of stairs while pregnant, and was arrested and threatened with prosecution following a comment she made to medical personnel that led police to believe she had fallen intentionally.

Colorado voters in 2008 and 2010 roundly rejected “personhood” initiatives that aimed to grant full legal rights to human eggs from the moment of fertilization. The national organization behind the idea, Personhood USA, then took its campaign to Mississippi, betting the state’s large bloc of religious voters might put it over the top and set the stage to challenge Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1973.

The personhood proposal would criminalize abortion without exception and outlaw some methods of birth control. The rights of pregnant women would be curtailed. The bill would shut down much of fertility and stem-cell research industries in the state, a fact which weighed strongly against the proposal in Colorado, where the biotech sector thrives.

Most of Colorado’s major Republican candidates for office in 2008 rejected the proposal as overreaching. In the tea party election of 2010, however, all of the major Republican candidates endorsed it. Fourth District freshman Representative Cory Gardner at a tea party candidate forum said he had circulated copies of the initiative at his church.

The Republican and the Democratic candidate for governor in Mississippi have endorsed the proposal, as did the state legislature, which has to approve initiatives before they land on the ballot.

Indeed, Colorado has a much looser initiative system than does Mississippi. In the roughly 30 years that the initiative system has been in place there, only two initiatives have ever made it to the ballot, according to Stateline.

The personhood measure crossed Mississippi’s high procedural hurdles this week, another product of the Republican wave-election of 2010.

Stateline:

The ballot measure comes after a historic legislative year in which states enacted more than 80 new restrictions on abortion, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. This year’s flurry of laws is more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005, the institute says. But none are like the measure that Mississippi voters are expected to consider November 8.

Backers of the Mississippi measure are clear: If approved, they say, the initiative would ultimately outlaw abortion and human cloning, embryo stem cell research, and “other forms of medical cannibalism. would be effectively stopped.” Opponents say the measure could make in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of birth control illegal “and miscarriages could become suspect.”

The hard line drawn by the initiatve pleases its backers but it also raises alarm bells for pro-life strategists looking to successfully challenge Roe. They say the bill is sure to be struck down as violating federal law and that such a decision would create even stronger precedent in support of the legalized abortion status quo.

In its report today on the Mississippi proposal, Stateline echoes much of the commentary around the bill that emerged during the last two elections in Colorado. The organization quotes University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket.

“[Personhood] was widely seen as a radical proposal that would require massive changes in state law.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Gualberto Garcia Jones

Jones, who is also a co-founder of Personhood USA, said it was the first time he had seen the site. He said that despite the fact the info page provides links implicating his organizations, he does not know who created it. He said that it could possibly be a volunteer or other individual involved in the campaign.

At least two members integral to the personhood campaign appear to have been aware of the site’s existence. Jennifer Mason, communications director for Personhood USA, “liked” comments posted by the site’s administrators as early as Oct. 8, the first day the page began posting. While Leslie Hanks, vice-president of Colorado Right to Life and co-sponsor of the Personhood Amendment, similarly ‘liked’ a variety of comments on the site, he said he does not agree with the main theme of the site.

“I don’t agree that the people on the No on 62 campaign are like Nazis,” Jones told the Colorado Independent. He said they, like some members of his own family, are just misinformed.

Still, while not seeing pro-choice advocates as Nazis, Jones said the comparison between abortion and the Nazi plan to commit genocide was apt in one way. He said that, like the thought process used by those involved in the plan to exterminate the Jewish population, individuals who support abortion must dehumanize a human life to view the procedure as ethically permissible. “I would say the disregard for human life is necessary,” Jones concluded.

Cara DeGette, spokeswoman for the No on 62 campaign, said Jones’ comments were “preposterous.”

“[The Holocaust] is not what we are talking about here,” DeGette said. “It has no relevance.”

DeGette said that while the No on 62 campaign was shocked upon to see the Facebook page, the campaign was focused on educating and ensuring that voters make it to the polls to vote against Amendment 62 — the so-called “Personhood Amendment.”

On Oct.8, the “End infant genocide page” posted this opening note:

“WELCOME PERSONHOOD ADVOCATES – LET’S EXPOSE THE TRUTH BEHIND THE “NO on 62″ FEMI-NAZI’S AGENDA => DENYING THE PERSONHOOD OF THE UNBORN SO THEY CAN KEEP KILLING KIDS LEGALLY! PLEASE PASS IT ALONG & SUGGEST THIS PAGE TO ALL YOUR FB FRIENDS!”

“Were we shocked? Absolutely. Were we revolted? Absolutely,” DeGette said. “But in the end we just want to make sure people get out and vote against Amendment 62.”

If passed by voters, Amendment 62 will change the definition of person in the Colorado Constitution by providing the full range of constitutional rights to a zygote. Among other changes, the amendment would outlaw abortion, numerous forms of birth control and embryonic stem cell research in the state.

Jones said that if the argument was about name calling, “the other side routinely says we are like the Taliban.”

A Google search found that supporters of personhood across the country are often pejoratively referred to as “the Taliban” by some comment posters.

DeGette said her own organization has steered clear of name calling. She said such behavior has no place in the political debate.

“We have been as respectful as possible. There is no reason to get in the gutter and name call,” DeGette said. “We don’t engage in those types of name calling.”

A NO on 62 rally against the Personhood Amendment. (Photo by Joseph Boven)

And while Personhood USA Co-founder Keith Mason refused to comment for this article, Personhood Colorado Director Gualberto Garcia Jones and Fofi Mendez, campaign manager for the personhood opposition group No On 62, said Colorado is a tactical battleground for the issue in the country.

“I think that Colorado has been a battleground, in fact, we have been ground zero for Personhood USA’s attempt to get [personhood] passed in multiple states,” Mendez told the Colorado Independent.

Personhood USA states that it is a “grassroots Christian organization founded to establish personhood efforts across America to create protection for every child.”

Jones agreed that Colorado is a battleground state, but he said that’s true of a host of issues, including personhood. He pointed to a blend of “East Coast liberal values” and “Mid-West family values” found in the state as the cause and added that the campaign has learned lessons from Colorado it will carry on to other states.

Jones, who is also part of the leadership of Personhood USA, said the Colorado initiative has taught them that the key to a successful campaign is grassroots organizing.

“There is that idea of trickle-down economics; well, I think that this is like trickle up politics,” Jones said. “When you are formidable, politicians will come on board. Some will peel away, but most of them realize that their base is our people.”

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of American, told the Colorado Independent that her own organization was using similar tactics by working on the grassroots level in many states to ensure women’s rights are protected. “We take this very seriously. We want to send a message not only here but around the country that this is not supported by the American people.”

Monica McCafferty, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, agrees: “All affiliates that are facing personhood measures, we are in touch. We do have a strategy. We realize the opposition has a multi-year, multi-state plan, and we are going to fight it no matter what.”

That seriousness on both sides of the debate can be seen in donations from organizations with concerns that are as much local as they are national.

The No on 62 campaign has brought in close to $450,000 dollars to date, with Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains being the largest donor, according to Mendez. Still, Planned Parenthood affiliates in California gave early in the campaign to help jumpstart the coalition’s efforts.

“All of those Planned Parenthood affiliates, of course, recognize that they may be experiencing this at some point since Personhood USA has said that they want to bring this to every state in the nation,” Mendez said.

Secretary of State records show that as of July 15 the No on 62 campaign had brought in $45,020. Of that sum, $20,000 came from Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino counties in California, $5,000 from Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project/ LA County Action Fund, and $9,500 from other Planned Parenthood affiliates in California. The ACLU of Colorado gave $10,000.

Despite out-of-state contributions, Cara DeGette, spokeswoman for the No on 62 campaign, said the real “nuts and bolts organizing” to fight the initiative is occurring here in the state and is supported by a broad base of 58 organizations.

Personhood Colorado’s reports showed the issues committee had received $74,619.83 in contributions as of July 15. Of that total, $33,698.59 was in the form of non-monetary contributions from Personhood USA. A further $10,000 was donated by the national pro-life group the American Life League.

Jones said current Personhood Colorado donation figures had yet to be tallied but said the distribution of contributors was likely similar to those in past filings.

While similarly worded initiatives supported by Personhood USA failed to reach the ballot in Alaska, Nevada and Missouri, the group has lauded Colorado as a place where its grassroots and organizational efforts have pushed personhood onto the ballots and to the voters.

Erik Maulbetsch, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, however, pointed to other logistical reasons personhood will reach voters this year.

“Colorado has a low signature threshold for ballot initiatives to make changes to our constitution,” Maulbetsch said. “While this does allow small groups of zealots such as the so-called “personhood” proponents to place their dangerous initiative on our ballot, voters will once again reject this tired attempt to force extreme religious views into the Colorado Constitution.”

Jones in turn said if conservative gubernatorial candidates Republican Dan Maes and American Constitution Party Tom Tancredo’s supporters shows up to the polls in November, personhood should fair well.