In a "Truth Test" check of a Perlmutter ad, 9News Brandon Rittiman concluded Thursday that it's "arguable" whether Joe Coors opposes abortion, even in the case of rape and incest," as Permutter's ad asserts.
Even if you're not a sponge for personhood trivia, like I am, you may know that Coors supported the personhood amendment in 2010, which would ban all abortions, including for rape and incest. He even donated $1,000 to the cause just two years ago.
Then, in August, he told The Denver Post that he would not support personhood again this year because the voters had already rejected it twice.
But Coors did not say that he withdrew his support for it permanently, or even that he disagreed with it.
So, given Coors support for personhood, how could 9News possibly find it "arguable" that Coors actually supports abortion in the case of rape and incest?
Well, because that's what his campaign told 9News last month! Thursday's Truth Test cites this 9News interview with Coors, which was included in a September Truth Test:
...the Coors campaign says that Joe Coors would seek to ban abortion, but would allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk.
A spokesperson for Coors says he would encourage women who are pregnant from instances of rape or incest not to terminate their pregnancies. But he does not believe the law should "criminalize" abortion in such traumatic circumstances.
The Coors Campaign also told 9News in September that Coors "does not want to make any kind of birth control illegal." (Hello. It's widely agreed that the personhood amendment would ban some forms of birth control.)
On Thursday, 9News went further, reporting that now Coors "would not support further efforts to enact "Personhood" laws." This may be based on 9News' report in September that "Joe Coors is still pro-life, and feels he can be pro-life, even without backing personhood efforts."
It's unclear whether 9News is referring to not backing this year's efforts, which has been Coors' position previously, or whether Coors has, like Ken Buck and Paul Ryan before him, and done a big old flip flop.
So what do you do with this, if you're a journalist at 9News or anywhere else?
It's time for a direct intervention with the candidate.
How did he come around to endorsing (and donating to) the personhood amendment in the first place? Even if he's not supporting the personhood amendment this time, why has his abortion position, as reflected in his previous support for the amendment, changed? Did he understand what the personhood amendment would do, when he endorsed and donated $1,000? (You'd think he'd have known what exactly he was donating to, since $1,000 is not a penny-ante money, unless you're Scott Gessler)
Why is Coors no longer anti-abortion, with no exceptions? Did he go through some kind of life transition? Why did his thinking change? In other words, how could this happen?
We need to hear from Coors on this.