Call me one of those single issue, litmus test Democrats, but I still think there are a few questions about Bill Ritter's position on abortion that I'd like to have answered.
1. Ritter says in his position statement that he will "strongly oppose any effort that would seek to criminalize women or their doctors over this issue." That's good. But would he support an effort to, say, take away doctors' licenses to practice medicine if they perform abortions? That could have a devastating effect on access to safe abortions while still fulfilling Ritter's campaign promise to oppose criminal penalties for abortion.
2. In the comments to my previous post there was a suggestion that Ritter's support for emergency contraception isn't as strong as his website might suggest, because he also supports the "right" of pharmacists and other providers not to offer emergency contraception. My questions are, is this true, and if so, how far would the "right" extend. Are we talking about people not getting their prescriptions filled because the pharmacist is a fundamentalist? Would corporations have the "right" to deny service through an entire chain of pharmacies or hospitals?
3. Would he oppose a state constitutional amendment preserving the right to have an abortion?
I know a lot of people think asking these questions is needlessly divisive, or that it is better to focus on the latest Bob Beauprez outrage (and it is outrageous), but I think we need to know what this pro-choice state might face under a Ritter administration. It could be a real problem if right wing Republicans succeed in purging the pro-choicers from their ranks in the state legislature and then retaking one or both houses. (Are there any anti-choice Dems in the state legislature? I'm not aware of any.) Certainly the anti-choice movement is going to be studying Ritter's position, which strikes me as carefully hedged, at least this closely to see what common ground they might be able to find with him.