In a recent interview by Colorado Pols blogger David Thielen, CO Senate Republican candidate Ken Buck reiterates his statement that he does not believe in abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.
Thielen's interview quotes Buck as saying:
Ken then talked about the effort he is involved in to provide a place for pregnant women to stay while they take the baby to term and then keep it or put it up for adoption.
Mr. Buck is running for a seat in the United States Senate, not for president of his church. The interview with Thielen discusses his plans if elected Legislator at the highest level in our nation's capitol. Building a home for unwed mothers (if that is what he is referring to here) is a noble endeavor as a pastime or hobby for the average person, but does mentioning it in this interview constitute a policy proposal -- one that addresses taking away the right to medical self-determination for just over half of the US population?
Buck says he is not running on the issue of abortion. Can voters trust someone who praises tea-partiers for their support, and is not afraid to say such misogynistic things as people should vote for him because he is "not wearing high heels"? What Buck's supporters are not admitting is that a US Senate seat is for six years, and a great deal can happen in even a year. Remember a few years ago when people said, "Health care reform will never pass. America is not ready for it"? Here we are, less than six months after the largest health care reform legislation ever.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, what could happen if Ken Buck went back on his word to blogger David Thielen, and chose to vote his conscience and the teachings of his faith. Imagine other anti-choice candidates like Buck being elected in 2010, as well. In fact, that is precisely what the right-wing extremists are trying to do. What would Buck and the tea-partiers offer in place of legal pregnancy terminations to women and young girls who have been raped?
Would Buck suggest these women hide away to have their babies in shame the way they did in earlier generations in our nation's history? Should they go away from their homes to "care for a sick Aunt in another city" the way many women did three-quarters of a century ago?
Would the pregnancy facilities he says he supports be like homeless shelters, only for pregnant women thrown out of their homes with no income and no one to help them? If that is the case, would they need to become pregnant first to qualify?
Would these pregnancy centers (camps? dormitories? homes? institutions? villages? projects?) house women against their will to make sure they did not terminate their pregnancies?
What about divorced or abandoned mothers who have other children? Who would pay their mortgages, feed their children, send them to school, clothe them, help them with their homework, and raise them, while their mothers would be away at "pregnancy camp," especially if Dad is already a dead-beat?
What about children who are raped or molested by an uncle or cousin or neighbor or stepfather? Would they be forced to leave school, their families, and all they knew to go to these "pregnancy centers?
Who would pay for these pregnancy facilities -- the medical bills, the counseling bills, the guardians, the overhead? Would there be tutors available for the underage women who are missing school?
Would Ken Buck support increasing taxes to finance these facilities?
Who would raise all of the babies of adolescent girls who are raped or molested, if their options were taken away? Would Mr. Buck find homes for all of their infants?
Would all of the pregnant females who have their babies in pregnancy centers go home immediately after giving birth? What if there was no home to go back to when they were no longer pregnant?
Anti-abortion candidates like Buck must answer tough questions like these if they are to quell our fears, or publicly denounce the desire to challenge Roe vs. Wade. I invite Mr. Buck to come up with a realistic plan to address the consequences of such radical legislative policies. Colorado voters need to listen carefully to his response, and think about what could potentially happen to their wives and daughters and sisters and nieces and mothers, if Mr. Buck and people like him got their way. Real lives of real women, and other family members are at stake here.
Incidentally, I have not historically been an outspoken champion for abortion. As a mother of three children, I have felt genuinely conflicted on this issue. There was a time in my life I may have even agreed with Mr. Buck. After many years of observing people, however, I've discovered that loving babies sometimes means preventing their birth to people who do not have the resources to care for them adequately.
I look forward to someday becoming a grandmother, but not anytime soon. I've raised my children to be responsible and conscientious. I hope and pray my family will never be faced with such a decision, but as an educated woman and as a voter, I must stay informed, and always be on guard against those who pry into other families' private decisions.
I applaud Mr. Buck for his interest in community service, if the "effort" he mentions is to offer another alternative to safe and legal abortion in his hometown. If Mr. Buck thinks building homes for pregnant women alone would justify taking away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, and is suggesting it as a model for public policy, I have grave concerns about his candidacy. Without good alternatives for radical changes, voting for any pro-life candidate for the US Senate is simply too risky, even if he is successful in leading us to believe he would never vote his conscience.
Follow Nancy Cronk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Nancy Cronk
In Ken Buck's America, is abortion still allowed to save the life of the mother?
If so ... who exactly gets to decide whether a mother's life is in sufficient jeopardy to abort?
Will the life panel members be appointed or elected?
What penalty will they face if they refuse a petition for an abortion and the petitioner dies due to pregnancy related causes? I assume there will be some kind of penalty and they won't be able to wield godlike powers over their neighbors without shouldering equivalent responsibility.
Obama used all of the power of the Presidency, the DNC, the DSCC and Organizing for America to make sure that an "appointed", never elected, Anchutz Corporate Raider and WallStreet Cash recipient, won our primary.
The New York Times says that Bennet got DPS Deeper in Debt..
"Exotic Deals Put Denver Public Schools Deeper in Debt"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/business/06denver.html
and David Sirota NYT: Bennet Helped Future Wall Street Donors Fleece DPS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/nyt-unloads-devastating-s_b_672801.html
These are all legitimate topics for discussion after a divisive primary.
1. Former Govenor Bill Owens endorsing Bob Schaefer, then changing his mind and backing Peter Coors.
2. In 2005, Republicans split over Referendum C.
3.Another bitter primary, this one for governor, pitted congressman Bob Beauprez against Marc Holtzman, the president of the University of Denver. Beauprez won the nomination, but the "Both Ways Bob" label slapped on him by Holtzman stuck, and Democrat Bill Ritter won the governorship in a landslide.
Keep fighting among ourselves, The Denver Post loves it.
However, in my case, the sentence is completed like this: " I must stay informed, and always be on guard against those who do not acknowledge, or care about, the millions of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, have fallen into bankruptcy and are now living in shelters or on the streets."
The shelters in CO are already full and are turning away hundreds of people each day. I know because I've been calling them. This problem - no, crisis - is going to explode when the UI extensions expire in November and the snow starts falling.
I wish, Nancy, that you would hold the candidates - ALL of them - to the same high, social accountability standards you write about above when it comes to the highly publicized, well-known issues surrounding the millions of middle class Americans who are being pushing aside and ignored by our government and literally living in the streets - and, in dozens of extreme cases, are beginning to turn to suicide because they have no where and no one to turn to.
KWiedemer
Denver Unemployment Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/unemployment-in-denver/clde-not
When it comes to the long-term unemployed neither Mr, Buck nor Mr. Bennet give a second thought to letting those who have lost their homes, exhausted all of their UI benefits and have no place to live end up on the streets.
Please refer to an article written on Friday, 8/27, "Nonprofit braces for influx of unemployed "99ers" which states:
[A statewide nonprofit is preparing to help the more than 157,000 Pennsylvanians who may use all 99 weeks of their unemployment benefits by the end of the year. United Way of Pennsylvania President Tony Ross says the organization will bring together both state and local leaders to aid these people known as "99ers"].
http://witf.org/news/regional-and-state/4807-nonprofit-braces-for-influx-of-unemployed-q99ersq
Per the CDLE, there are already more than 20,000 '99ers' in CO; the number is growing very rapidly all across the nation.
At least Buck is willing to put pregnant mothers in a shelter; that's a whole lot more than the unemployed get - from either Senate candidate.
Denver Unemployment Examiner
Are you now saying that comments you don't agree with SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED?
It is true that this is no longer about what Ritter did, it is now about Obama stealing our Senate Nomination for Michael Bennet. If Obama had waited until after our primary to endorse Bennet, we Colorado Democrats would have come together to elect our nominee, But Obama apparently thought we Colorado rank and file Democrats were too childlike to make such a weighty decision without firm guidance from Obama.
So Obama used all of the power of the Presidency, the DNC, the DSCC and Organizing for America to make sure that an "appointed", never elected, Anchutz Corporate Raider and WallStreet Cash recipient, won our primary.
The New York Times says that Bennet got DPS Deeper in Debt..
"Exotic Deals Put Denver Public Schools Deeper in Debt"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/business/06denver.html
and David Sirota, NYT:
Bennet Helped Future Wall Street Donors Fleece Denver Schools
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/nyt-unloads-devastating-s_b_672801.html
These are all legitimate topics for discussion after a divisive primary.
For a year now, I've pointed out to you that Bennet has as strong of a record as our other Democratic Senator, Mark Udall. Like Udall, Bennet has voted consistently as a Democrat -- a full 92% of the time, on average. Unlike most of the othe members of Congress, he has never missed a single vote. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b001267/ Michael Bennet is a good man with a conscience and a strong passion for social justice. I understand you have been angry about a few votes you didn't like. I get that. (I don't agree with one hundred percent of what any legislator does. No two people see eye to eye, exactly.)
Let's move on, and not make every blog diary about Andrew Romanoff not being selected by Bill Ritter in January '09. The Democratic primary is over -- the people voted. Bennet won. Time to move on. Every day we waste our time arguing about what Ritter did 18 months ago, is a day closer to a misogynistic, tea-party candidate becoming a leader in our state.
For Democrats that care about "honest elections" there is no greater issue. This will taint everything that Michael Bennet does or says.
I Will Not Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils when the election was Stolen.
Your derogatory posts towards Romanoff Nancy still have me fuming and I'm not going to forget before November rolls around.
So it is up to them to stop driving in that wedge.