In an August 11 article about the first televised debate between gubernatorial candidates Bill Ritter (D) and Bob Beauprez (R), Associated Press writer Steven K. Paulson misleadingly reported that in a discussion about a hypothetical bill to outlaw abortions, “Beauprez said Ritter went too far when he said he would allow exceptions for 'fetal anomalies,' which could include children with Down syndrome, a common birth defect.” Paulson's article failed to inform readers that it was Beauprez, not Ritter, who asserted that Ritter's position would allow abortion in the case of fetuses with Down syndrome. At no point during the debate did Ritter mention Down syndrome.

Moreover, Paulson did not mention that in responding to Beauprez's characterization of his position on abortion, Ritter cited an entirely different condition as an example of a fetal anomaly that could be exempted from any abortion ban: a fetus that develops without a brain stem.

From Paulson's August 11 AP article, “Beauprez, Ritter clash on abortion, tax surplus”:

The two candidates also disagreed on transportation, illegal immigration and spending the state tax surplus.

Both candidates have said they personally oppose abortion, but Beauprez said Ritter went too far when he said he would allow exceptions for “fetal anomalies,” which could include children with Down syndrome, a common birth defect.

“Fetal anomalies too? You're still pro-life too?” Beauprez asked. “I don't have a foot in both buckets and I don't try to straddle a fence,” Beauprez said.

Beauprez said if Roe v. Wade were overturned at the federal level and a bill was put on his desk that protected the life of the mother, he would sign it. Ritter said he would allow exceptions for rape, incest and fetal anomalies.

Ritter did not mention Down syndrome when discussing abortion during the August 11 debate. Rather, in discussing whether as governor he would sign a hypothetical bill to outlaw abortion, Ritter said, "[I]t depends on how it looks when it comes to my desk -- but I think it's important to understand the existence of exceptions: rape, incest, even fetal anomalies." Ritter did not say which fetal anomalies should be excepted, nor did he say all fetal anomalies should be excepted.

Later in the debate, Beauprez said he interpreted Ritter's statement to mean that aborting a fetus because it has Down syndrome is “OK.” Referring to Ritter, Beauprez stated: “I don't know where his line is, because he's openly said he's very pro-life. But I think I just heard him say that fetal abnormalities -- which I guess means if you find out you've got a child with Down syndrome -- that's OK. That's a big problem to me.”

While Ritter did not directly address Beauprez's assertion about Down syndrome, Ritter did respond by saying, “And to say 'fetal anomalies,' some might involve hydrocephal -- or children born without brain stems or being in utero without brain stems.” Ritter added that his decision on whether to sign a hypothetical bill banning abortion would depend, in part, “on what the fetal anomalies are or aren't” included as exceptions from the bill.

In contrast to Paulson's misleading AP article, the Rocky Mountain News reported on August 12 that Ritter “said he would veto any bill to outlaw abortion that didn't allow exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. He also said he might consider abortion in the case of severe fetal anomalies, such as a lack of a brain stem.”

From the August 11 debate on Denver PBS affiliate KBDI Channel 12:

RITTER: So it depends on how it looks when it comes to my desk -- but I think it's important to understand the existence of exceptions: rape, incest, even fetal anomalies. And the second part of it is, does it or does it not contain criminal penalties?

JIM BENEMANN (moderator): Congressman?

BEAUPREZ: Fetal anomalies, too?

RITTER: Well, I think that --

BEAUPREZ: But we're still pro-life, huh, Bill?

RITTER: Yeah, I would absolutely say that, Bob.

BEAUPREZ: If Roe v. Wade were overturned at the federal level, and a bill were put on my desk that still protected the life of the mother, I'd sign it.

[...]

BENEMANN: Congressman, for you this is a fairly black and white issue, apparently.

BEAUPREZ: It is.

BENEMANN: Do you see too much gray in Mr. Ritter's position?

BEAUPREZ: Oh my goodness. I don't know where his line is, because he's openly said he's very pro-life. But I think I just heard him say that fetal abnormalities -- which I guess means if you find out you've got a child with Down syndrome -- that's OK. That's a big problem to me. The so-called morning-after pill. I believe that that is clearly a fertilized embryo; we believe that life begins there. That's why I have a problem with that. Taxpayers have spoken repeatedly and said that we don't want taxpayer, at least, funding of abortions, and he says he's going to restore funding to Planned Parenthood. I have a problem with that. I am fairly black-and-white, and I think people need to know that.

[...]

BENEMANN: Bill, do you feel as if you've backtracked on this issue since you've become a governor -- candidate for governor?

RITTER: No, I have talked about this since 1993 when I was first appointed. And it really is important to understand that fetal anomalies, for instance -- and that's why it's difficult. Because you ask a question that's a hypothetical -- what'll happen is the legislature will have a discussion -- and we're still talking about a hypothetical that Roe v. Wade's overturned -- they'll have a discussion. And to say “fetal anomalies,” some might involve hydrocephal -- or children born without brain stems or being in utero without brain stems. And there will be this vetting that will happen in the legislature, and it will come to the governor, and for the governor to say, “I'll sign this or sign that” right now without saying, “I'll look at it and I'll make a decision about what the exceptions are, how broad they are,” and if rape and incest are not two of them, then I'm not going to sign it. And it depends on what the fetal anomalies are or aren't. But those are all part of leadership and part of looking at the public-policy discussion.