State Sen. Laura Woods' Opposition to Abortion, Even for Rape, May Sink Republicans

Choice issues will continue to impregnate political debate as we head toward November for the simple reason that women, a huge swing voting bloc in Colorado, care about candidates' positions on abortion. Of course they do. That's common sense.

Yet, you still hear anti-choice conservatives saying how insulted they are by progressives who talk about choice, because somehow they think it means progressives don't think women care about the economy, the environment, etc. Women obviously care about those things too. But also, choice--which is often less muddled, in terms of where candidates stand, and therefore defines a candidate more than other issues.

And choice issues could prove decisive in the senate district that will likely determine if Democrats control Colorado's government after November. That would be the seat held by anti-choice state Sen. Laura Woods (R-Westminster).

You can read more details in RH Reality Check, but, briefly, Woods isn't following the mold of Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner. He completely denied his co-sponsorship of a personhood abortion-ban bill in an effort to win over state-wide voters, who pretty much mirror the voters in Woods' swing district, evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliateds.

And Gardner beat Democrat Mark Udall in 2014.

But Woods is sticking to her conservative principles, as she puts it. After openly embracing a personhood abortion-ban, including a ban on abortion for rape or incest, 1) during her 2014 primary, 2) during her 2014 general election campaign, and 3) during her first year in office, Woods is 4) again sponsoring a personhood bill this election year--along with a bill requiring women to be offered an ultrasound prior to having an abortion (and also to wait 24 hours before an abortion to think about it more).

Last week, Woods' Democratic opponent, Rachel Zenzinger, wrote on Facebook that after last year's Planned Parenthood massacre, Woods was, in Zenzinger's words, "advocating for this kind of [clinic] violence." Woods responded last week on Twitter by condemning the clinic attack and all violence, but, as someone pointed out on Twitter, it took Woods 83 days to do this. And to this day, she's never explained the timing or meaning of her Facebook post, which was supportive terrorism to fight injustice. No one would argue that war or revolution are sometimes justified,  but in the wake of the clinic shooting, Woods' post made it appear like she supported the shooter-especially because she didn't comment on the attack.

Political junkies agree that the odds are against Woods winning the Jeffco seat during a presidential election year, in a district she won by only about 650 votes in the 2014 GOP wave year. And, you'd also have to think that the women who didn't vote in 2014, but turn out this year, will likely to pay attention to Woods' positions on abortion and birth control.

"If you've looked at my voting record at all, what you will know is, I'm an independent thinker," Woods told The Post Jan. 10. "...I bucked my leadership, I bucked the party, I bucked the caucus ... if it didn't line up with my principles or my district."

But repeated polls, and common sense, say the swing voters in her district disagree with her on choice.