It's not just senatorial Colorado candidate Cory Gardner who's taken the endlessly puzzling position of being opposed to personhood at the state level but supportive of the federal version.
Colorado gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez draws a false distinction between the two as well, saying he's opposed to the state amendment but supportive of federal legislation. Even though they aim to do the same thing, ban all abortion, even for rape, according to yours truly and, more importantly, Factcheck.org.
Despite the obvious relevancy of personhood on the campaign trail, with ads about it bombarding us whenever we turn on the TV, I can't find a local reporter who's asked either one of them the simple question of why they favor federal personhood legislation over the state version.
Instead, multiple reporters, including Mark Matthews at The Denver Post and Bente Birkeland at Rocky Mountain Community Radio, listened to Gardner's spokespeople tell them that that federal personhood legislation is essentially a toothless symbol--without asking for an explanation. On Tuesday, the Hill's Elise Viebeck reported Gardner's position, apparently without seeking an explanation. So did The Post's Anthony Cotton.
CBS4's Shaun Boyd taped Gardner himself implying that there's a distinction between federal and state personhood legislation, without asking him why.
At least Politico's Paige Winfield Cunningham asked the Gardner campaign about the discrepancy. But she got no response, and she's apparently let it drop.
A question about the federal personhood bill was reportedly put to Gardner on KRDO radio's Morning News March 24, but, again, he wasn't pressed for an explanation when he said it's a "Democratic talking point" and an "incorrect characterization of the federal legislation" to call it a personhood bill.
So does anyone detect a hole in the reporting here?
Who's gonna be the first reporter to get the details on why Gardner (and Beauprez) support one personhood bill and not the other?