The measure would have conferred personhood on fertilized eggs, and would have outlawed abortion in all cases. The measure was widely seen as winning right up until the end.

Planned Parenthood spokesperson Tail Sye release this statement:

“The defeat of the so-called ‘personhood’ amendment in Mississippi is a major victory for women’s health.

“Mississippi voters rejected the so-called ‘personhood’ amendment because they understood it is government gone too far, and would have allowed government to have control over personal decisions that should be left up to a woman, her family, her doctor and her faith, including keeping a woman with a life-threatening pregnancy from getting the care she needs, and criminalizing everything from abortion to common forms of birth control such as the pill and the IUD.

“We congratulate the Mississippians for Healthy Families Coalition, which ran an amazing campaign to educate voters about the dangerous impact of the amendment.

“Mississippians from all walks of life, medical professionals, clergy, parents, and young women and men, spoke out in opposition to the amendment.

“The more voters learned about the many dangerous and extreme consequences of the initiative, the more they opposed it. Polling showed that in the final days leading up to the vote, when voters were given information about the so-called “personhood” amendment, support for it dropped below 50 percent.

“In what Gallup ranks as the most conservative state in the nation, voters of all political persuasions rejected the measure.

“Mississippi is now the second state to reject ‘personhood.’ Colorado defeated the so-called ‘personhood’ amendment by wide margins in 2008 and 2010.”

“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.

“I think we are, by our nature, nurturers and negotiators. We want people to get along, we want to find a solution, we want to move forward,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) told Terkel. “I think sometimes there is a tendency to like the fight for the fight’s sake every once in a while with some of the guys. So I think having more women involved will help.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), said that in negotiations female senators are more solutions oriented.

“When women are part of the negotiation and are part of decision-making, the outcomes are just better,” said Gillibrand. “When we have our dinners with the women in the Senate — the Democrats and Republicans — we have so much common ground. We agree on so many basic principles and values. I think if there were more women at the decision-making table, we would get more things done.”

With more women, priorities might likely shift as well, just as a demographic matter. Take the view of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, for example. Should we slash those programs?

As Terkel reports, “56 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, 57 percent of Social Security beneficiaries and 69 percent of adult Medicare recipients are women, who tend to live longer than men.”

Would the Senate be focusing more on the recovery than, say, defunding Planned Parenthood?

Since the recession began in 2007, men have regained 27 percent of jobs lost while women have regained only 9 percent, according to Terkel. The recovery is moving three times faster for men.

On the state level, Coloradans have long abandoned lopsided male-dominated representation.

As the Colorado Independent reported this year, 41 women were sworn into the state legislature in 2011, strengthening the state’s standing as the women-lawmaker capital of the nation. Colorado gained five women in the Senate and lost one in the House. In addition to the 17 women in the 35-member Senate, there are 24 women serving in the 65-member House. That’s the largest percentage of women serving at any state capitol across the country and it’s also the largest number of women ever to serve at the Colorado capitol. .

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that the percentage of women serving in state legislatures in the country is down from 24.5 percent in 2010 to 23.4 percent this year. The percentage of women serving in Colorado dwarfs those figures at 41 percent.

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

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, wrote a letter announcing that the organization was turning “95 years young” this week. In it, she wrote:

When we say Planned Parenthood is 95 years young, we aren’t kidding. And we had better stay young – because even as millions of people count on Planned Parenthood, there are some politicians working to turn the clock back when it comes to women’s health. They are working to take away women’s access to birth control, cancer screenings and other essential health care.

But we are here to stay.

Last year we provided birth control services to more than 2.3 million people. We provided more than 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections. We served young women and young men. And when the going got tough, young women and men stood up for the health care provider they depend on.

Planned Parenthood was founded to make sure women could plan their pregnancies. Ninety-five years later, we are still committed to a world where all people are empowered to live healthy lives, without fear of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, a world where young people can delay pregnancy until they are ready to support a family.

In short, a world with Planned Parenthood.

Ninety-five years ago, life really began to change for American women and we haven’t looked back. Together, stronger-and younger – than ever, we have the power to shape a healthier future.

The organization is currently facing political pushback from all angles. The group is preparing for a congressional investigation launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-FL, at the request of Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group that wants to see Planned Parenthood defunded as part of its strategy to end abortion in the United States.

Planned Parenthood clinics provide low-cost services such as birth control, which is embraced by most of the population — including religious women. However, the organization is frequently under attack by anti-abortion groups because some of the clinics provide legal abortions.

Coupled with persistent economic troubles in the country, anti-abortion groups are using the fact Planned Parenthood offers abortions to gather support for defunding the chains on a federal level. The House GOP recently unveiled a spending bill that would “eliminate the Title X family-planning program, ban federal funding to Planned Parenthood Federation of America (unless the organization ends its abortion services), redirect teen-pregnancy-prevention programming funds to abstinence-only sex-education programs and ban private insurance companies from covering abortion,” according to our sister site, The American Independent.

The GOP-led House attempted to do the same this past spring, but failed because of significant opposition from Democrats in the Senate and the White House.

Richards wrote in her letter that “when Planned Parenthood’s ability to provide health care was under grave attack from congressional leaders this past spring, more than 1 million people stood up to defend the essential health care provided by nonprofit Planned Parenthood health centers in communities throughout this country.”

“Their motivation was clear,” she wrote. “One in five women in the United States has relied on a Planned Parenthood center for quality health care.”

Stearns told our sister site, The Florida Independent, back in July that such an investigation was possible, after the release a report arguing that lawmakers should defund Planned Parenthood. The report was written by Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group. As The Independent reported, Americans United called upon Congress to hold an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s finances and practices. While Planned Parenthood called the report false and “ideologically driven,” Stearns did not rule out launching an investigation.

Sarah Kliff of Politico reports that Stearns has already asked the president of Planned Parenthood to provide the committee with a range of documents.

According to the letter sent to Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, Stearn’s “committee has questions about the policies in place and actions undertaken by the [Planned Parenthood Federation of America] and its affiliates related to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion.”

According to a recent statement from Planned Parenthood:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) expressed disappointment that Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has put politics before lifesaving health care by launching what appears to be a politically motivated investigation and demanding an onerous amount of records from PPFA and its 83 affiliates, some going as far back as 13 years. …

“At a time when the American people need jobs, some members of Congress are instead misusing their political power to go after health care access for the most vulnerable women in the country,” said Richards. “We are certain that the millions of women and men who count on Planned Parenthood will make their voices heard and speak out, just as they did during the budget battle in the spring.” …

Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in a letter to Congressman Stearns, wrote, “We are aware of no predicate that would justify this sweeping and invasive request to Planned Parenthood. The HHS Inspector General and state Medicaid programs regularly audit Planned Parenthood and report publicly on their findings. These audits have not identified any pattern of misuse of federal funds, illegal activity, or other abuse that would justify a broad and invasive congressional investigation.”

Stearns has asked Planned Parenthood for a host of documents, including auditing records and written policies.

Stearns has disapproved of Planned Parenthood for some time. This year he introduced the Informed Choice Act, which The Independent reported “would authorize grants ‘to nonprofit tax-exempt organizations for the purchase of ultrasound equipment to provide free examinations to pregnant women needing such services, and for other purposes.’” In essence, his bill would have given money to crisis pregnancy centers, which aim to discourage women from having abortions, so they could buy ultrasound equipment.

In their letter to Stearns, DeGette and Waxman note that they believe this investigation to be one more cog in an ongoing smear campaign against Planned Parenthood. They wrote, “This year, House Republicans have voted twice to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. You strongly supported these efforts, stating that ‘defunding Planned Parenthood should be a fiscal and moral priority for Congress.’ You also unfairly smeared the organization when you claimed that Planned Parenthood is ‘willing to use public funds to commit a federal crime’ and is ‘willing to ignore the law in promoting its service.’ … It would be an abuse of the oversight process if you are now using the Committee’s investigative powers to harass Planned Parenthood again. Your fervent ideological opposition to Planned Parenthood does not justify launching this intrusive investigation.”

Depending on which way the Institute rules, for insured women, hormonal birth control would be essentially free.

National Public Radio reports:

That would have made a big difference for Andrea Leyva, of Tucson, Ariz. A few years ago, following the cancer death of one of her three children, she and her husband — both employed and with health insurance — were nonetheless struggling to pay the bills for them and their remaining two children.

The $25 copay for her monthly birth control prescription “began to fall into the category of a luxury for us,” she said, and they stopped filling the prescriptions regularly. At age 36, Leyva found herself pregnant with what she calls her “blessed surprise,” daughter Alexandria. “So while we’re happy that she’s here, it was not planned, and had we had some better finances, we probably could have made some better decisions,” Leyva says now.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of U.S. pregnancies are unintended. One Guttmacher study (pdf) showed that in 2001, the unintended pregnancy rate was 51 per 1,000 women ages 15-44, a rate that had remained unchanged since 1994. Additionally, 22 percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

It’s this last statistic that’s frequently used by abortion-rights groups such as the Guttmacher Institute and NARAL Pro-Choice America to promote birth control use as a way to prevent unintended pregnancies and, in turn, abortion. NARAL recently created apetition to encourage the Obama administration to adopt contraception as a no-cost preventive service. The organization has also created a Facebook application that shows how much women would save if they did not have to pay for the cost of contraception.

Step one of the application is to choose the person who would be taking birth control, then her age, how many kids she has, followed by her choice of birth control –- patch, pill, shot, implant, vaginal ring, cervical cap, diaphragm, IUD. Finally, the app generates how much the woman in question would save.

For example, if “your wife” is 30, has one child and is using the “birth control implant,” you and your wife can save $2,856, according to the NARAL application, and with that money, “pay for all your utilities for six months.”

However, NARAL is not the only group trying to influence the selections before the Department of Health and Human Services makes the final decision by Aug. 1. The debate has also focused on whether contraception will include “emergency contraception,” or the “morning-after pill,” which many in the anti-abortion rights community equate with abortion.

Influential policy group and law firm Americans United for Life (AUL) released a blog post Tuesday, arguing that requiring all insurance plans to cover contraception would hinder conscience-protection rights for insurance-plan recipients opposed to abortion and would likely mean “more money for Planned Parenthood.” Last July, when HHS announced it would be developing guidelines on “evidence-informed preventive care and screening” for women and tasked the Institute of Medicine to make its recommendations, AUL issued a written comment to HHS, part of which read: “It would be inappropriate to require group health plans and health insurance issuers to cover elective abortions or abortifacients, including the recently-approved drug ella.”

This notion that the two morning-after pills approved by the Food and Drug Administration, ella and Plan B, induce abortions and thus are “abortifacients,” is perpetuated by many anti-abortion groups such as Medical Students for Life of America and the Family Research Council. An FRC director recently told NPR that these drugs can cause early abortions by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs into the uterus.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) counters this claim, stating on its website that most commonly used forms of birth control, such as those containing only the hormone progestin, “are thought to prevent pregnancy mainly by preventing ovulation. They will not work if you are already pregnancy and will not affect a pregnancy that has started.” Emergency contraceptive pills that contain estrogen and progestin, “taken in higher-than-usual amounts” than regular birth control pills, are also thought to work by preventing ovulation, according to ACOG.

The bill goes a step beyond a similar law in Indiana that was recently signed into law by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels — which only takes state and federal funding away from Planned Parenthood but not hospitals or emergency clinics (the Indiana law is intended for all abortion clinics that also provide family planning services, but Planned Parenthood clinics were the only ones receiving Medicaid and grant funding).

The Texas measure is the result of an amendment (PDF) attached to Senate Bill 23, which addressed Medicaid funding and disbursements. The Houston Chronicle described SB 23 as being “convoluted,” even without the “obscure” amendment. The daily reported that the more than four-hour, “tense” floor debate Thursday included 114 pages of changes to the Medicaid funding bill.

The Houston Chronicle:

Plainview Republican Rep. Jim Landtroop sponsored the amendment freezing state funding for facilities that perform abortions. He amended his own amendment to exclude abortion-related services in the cases of medical emergencies, but only after strenuous objections from Democratic opponents.

“It’s not my intent to punish hospitals,” Landtroop said. “It’s to protect the lives of unborn children.”

Democrat Donna Howard responded, “I’m getting a little tired of men speaking for women’s health.”

In a 95-45 vote (two representatives voted “present” and one did not vote), the House approved the medicaid funding bill, which, according to the Chronicle, is an attempt to expand the privatization of Medicaid services, in addition to addressing other issues related to the efficiency, funding and “fraud-prevention” measures of Medicaid and other health-benefits programs.

From the Texas Tribune:

Many Democrats raised concerns about the language of the amendment, saying it would have far-reaching effects beyond his intention to “save unborn children.” At first their concerns caused Landtroop to withdraw the amendment and tighten the language to exclude medical emergencies. They said the wording of the amendment could potentially cut off state funding for any hospital that has given a woman a sonogram, prescribed the morning-after pill or helped a woman after a botched “back alley” abortion, which could technically be abortion-related services, they said. ”You may not intend it that way, but when you read your amendment, [it] includes those types of services,” said veteran Democrat and lawyer Sylvester Turner.

More state legislatures are demonstrating the desire to prevent entities that provide abortions from receiving state and federal funding for any services they provide. Yet, in recent polls, voters have come out against this defunding-for-family-planning trend.

A February poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street Journal asked 1,000 American adults point-blank how they felt about eliminating funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventive health services. In the 20-page survey published by the Wall Street Journal in March, the results show that 21 percent of those surveyed said it was “totally acceptable” to eliminate the funding; 24 percent said it was “mostly acceptable”; 26 percent said it was mostly unacceptable; and 27 percent said it was “totally unacceptable.”

More recently, Planned Parenthood Federation of America commissioned a Texas-based poll from Public Policy Polling (PDF), which showed that 56 percent of Texas voters support continued funding by the state to family planning health care for low-income women. In addition, the poll revealed that 57 percent of respondents believe Planned Parenthood should continue to provide services for women enrolled in the Women’s Health Program, which likely will not be renewed due to a recent amendment by Sen. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) to keep any abortion provider or affiliate from participating in the program.

Well, now that we are down to two, the gloves seem to be coming off.

Friday, Chris Romer sent out a press release questioning Michael Hancock’s bonafides on abortion rights.

Hancock fired right back, saying he is pro-choice all the way and criticizing Romer for going negative right out of the box.

From Romer:

MICHAEL HANCOCK DOESN’T GET IT ON CHOICE

Mayor has jurisdiction over health care policy, Title X block grants, enforcement of provider & patient protection laws

Michael Hancock, who refuses to say whether he’s pro-choice, also says it’s not an issue for Denver voters, and is unaware of the Mayor’s responsibilities on reproductive health care.

On Thursday, in response to a reporter’s question on the importance of women voters and choice in the Mayoral race, Hancock stated, “I think there comes a time as politicians we overreach and we talk about things we really don’t have an impact on. I’d rather talk about those issues that families told me they care about when I met with Highland Mommies, they didn’t talk about choice.”

According to Melanie Fitzroy, who lives in the Highlands section of Denver and is a member of the Highland moms, “Just because we didn’t talk about choice doesn’t mean it’s not important.”

According to former mayoral candidate Theresa Spahn, “One of the reasons I endorsed Chris Romer is because he walks the walk on choice. I’m really troubled that Michael Hancock doesn’t appreciate the significant role the mayor has when it comes to choice.”

Romer went on to list various ways in which the mayor’s position on choice might be important.

Hancock’s communications director fired off this response quickly from her phone when informed of Romer’s press release:

“We are only 72 hours past the Tuesday election and Chris is already going negative – and he has his facts wrong,” spokeswoman for the campaign Amber Miller said. “This is a desperate approach and is clearly how Chris is going to spend the rest of this campaign. Michael is pro choice. He received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. Period.”

HB 1254 (pdf) passed in the House in March and in the Senate on Thursday. It is now headed to the governor’s desk for a signature.

In voting for the bill Senator White from Hayden said the fact that thousands of bullied kids avoid attending classes in Colorado in 2011 is “ridiculous.” In casting her vote, she said her own children, like so many, were bullied for things they had no control over.

“I think that every single day children are bullied to the point of turning into hypochondriacs because they need an excuse to stay home from school,” she said. “They’re bullied for all kinds of reasons at all levels. They’re bullied for their sexual orientation, for being fat, for being too tall, for having pimples. Our children were bullied for being adopted. Our children were bullied for living in a big house. It’s ridiculous. Kids need to know that when they go to school they have a safe environment that they can learn in and they don’t have to feel like they need an excuse to stay home from school.”

Centennial Republican Nancy Spence said the move to put more responsibility on adult school faculty and staff to prevent bullying was long overdue.

“[W]e heard testimony in committee where teachers ignore instances of bullying, such as hitting and kicking and shoving and pushing,” she said. “That’s another reason this bill is important. There needs to be a message given to staff at our school that bullying is no longer acceptable, if it ever was…. This bill is going to protect children and get a message to teachers that bullying will not be tolerated.”

A bipartisan problem

The bipartisan bill was sponsored in the House by Reps Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, and Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, and in the Senate by Pat Steadman, D-Denver. Its authors introduced it in the wake of a spate of tragic news stories from around the country detailing the fact that bullying was an ongoing source of youth suicide coast to coast. Schafer and Priola told the press they wrote the bill in order to head off a “sensational suicide” in Colorado.

Sens Roberts, Spence and White were joined by all of the Senate Democrats and Republican Steve King in voting in favor of the bill. The Republican-controlled House passed the bill with 47 aye votes and 18 nays.

Colorado has led in the nation in working to limit bullying ever since the 1999 Columbine shootings. Among the programs put in place is a successful phone and texting hotline that encourages kids to anonymously report trouble.

Supporters of HB 1254, however, say putting much of the onus on kids to intervene isn’t good enough. The bill puts more responsibility on adults to directly work to solve the problem. It establishes school codes of conduct and reporting and it establishes an interim committee of lawmakers to study school bullying in the state. It also creates a board to award grants to promising anti-bullying programs and to evaluate those programs

According to a 2009 Healthy Kids Colorado survey (pdf), roughly 19 percent of all Colorado high school kids report being bullied. Roughly 30 percent say they have gotten into fights. Roughly 7 percent have been threatened with weapons. Last year more than 5 percent of all Colorado high schoolers stayed home from school for fear of bullying, which translates to 12,000 teen students. Among certain demographic groups, the percentages soar. Linda Kanan, director of the Department of Public Safety’s School Safety Resource Center, told the Independent that roughly 37 percent of gay and transgender kids avoid school for fear of bullying.

New-style conservative family values

Months ago voting in favor of same-sex civil unions, Ellen Roberts spoke for the women Republicans in the Senate when she said that the fact is gay people are having kids and that current state law does not protect them. There is no law providing for arrangements in the case of break ups. There are no child support and visitation laws that cover gay couples, she pointed out. She told the Colorado Independent she tried to talk about these reasons to support the bill among the Senate GOP caucus but to mostly no avail.

The men, she said “had different ideas.”

Forty-one women were sworn into the Colorado legislature this year, making up the largest percentage of women serving at any state capitol in the nation. There are 17 women in the 35-member Senate. There are 24 women serving in the 65-member House.

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

With that question, University of Denver students, staff and friends kicked off this year’s Take Back the Night rally on the DU campus Wednesday evening.

Designed to raise awareness of crimes against women, domestic violence and sexual/gender/identity violence of all kinds, the rally brought heart-rending stories to life, and brought life-affirming stories to some who maybe needed to hear them.

“I went to my first Take Back the Night about a hundred years ago, when I was in college,” said U.S. Senator Michael Bennet.

“It’s easy for me to be here,” he said. “I have three little girls at home that I don’t get to see nearly enough.”

Bennet said Congress’s seeming preoccupation with Planned Parenthood was misguided at best.

He recalled campaigning partly on a platform of reproductive choice and said people questioned why he talked about something that didn’t seem to be much of an issue to most people.

First thing back in the Senate, he said, fellow members ramped up efforts to limit choice.

“Most people don’t want the government to tell them how to live their life,” he said, adding that most people want Planned Parenthood and other programs offering women’s health care kept above the fray and safe from political attack.

He urged the women in the audience to “keep each other safe.”

Besides Bennet, Denver city council candidate Robin Kniech also attended, but did not speak. Bennet did not endorse anyone in the council or mayor’s race but did urge everyone to vote, calling it a duty.

Of course, the event was not about Bennet, who did not announce the appearance or invite the media. It was not about politics. It was about the fact that in 2011, in Colorado, many people, especially women, still have reason to fear if walking across campus at night, if walking through town at night, if going home to someone who isn’t that welcoming.

It was chance to tell stories of pain and of redemption. It was a chance for hugs and offers of support.

One woman told stories of a childhood marred by rape and abuse from family members–and an adulthood marred by the insistence from family members that “that is just what boys do”, that “it wasn’t so bad. Don’t make a big deal out of it.”

“To this day, there are people in my family who think my uncle did nothing wrong.”

With tears welling, she looked at the crowd gathered outside on a cold night, and said, “As girls, we do not need to just accept it.”

A member of the faculty said he had attended last year as an audience member and was struck by the fact he was the only member of the faculty in attendance. It struck him as wrong, he said, adding that faculty need to be outspoken in support of victims and potential victims.

“As a man,” he said, “it is easy to be complacent.”

He told of female students coming into his office and talking about having been raped. “Ostensibly they are there to talk about their writing, but…

“We all know these people,” he added.

Another man pointed out it is up to men to change their ways, up to men to tell their friends that sexual abuse in any form is wrong and can’t be tolerated. “Let’s face it,” he said, “most of the offenders are men. Men can end this.”

One woman told a harrowing tale of being in Fort Lauderdale on spring break five years ago and becoming separated from her friends at 3 am in what seemed like a dangerous part of town. She called a friend seeking advice. The friend told her to call 9-11. She did, and the police officer raped her.

For months after the rape, she recounted, she was out of it. She moved back in with her parents, needing help even with simple tasks of personal hygiene.

Finally, she said, she began going to therapy. The therapist told her she would grow from this. “I thought they were full of shit. But I learned to love myself. I learned to be with myself again. I am a stronger person today.”

While she said she wouldn’t wish her experience on anyone else, “it
made me who I am today.”