CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 18, 2010 09:46 PM UTC

CO reporters, who've essentially ignored Buck's abortion stance, should follow lead of radio host

  • 45 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

No matter what you think of abortion, it’s fair to say that U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck’s opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape and incest, is newsworthy, maybe not font-page material, but deserving of serious treatment.

Yet this tidbit about Buck has barely seen the light of day in the Colorado mainstream media.

In fact, Buck’s stance on abortion has been covered by only one major news outlet in Colorado, and that is, the Associated Press, according to Nexis search, though you might have heard about his view on this issue via the local blogosphere, progressive news sites or from a few national news outlets.

The Aug. 11 Associated Press piece ran in some smaller Colorado newspapers, or at least on their websites, but the AP story gave only passing treatment (12 words, to exact) to Buck’s abortion position, listing it among other positions cited by progressive organizations as “too crazy for Colorado.”

Denver local TV news stations apparently haven’t mentioned Buck’s abortion stance at all, according to an admittedly non-comprehensive web search.

Even if I missed something, and please let me know if I did, it’s fair to say that Colorado’s major news outlets have essentially ignored Buck’s position that women should not be allowed to choose to have an abortion if they become pregnant after being raped, even by family members.

That’s a serious omission, but Buck sprang up unexpectedly, and I have no doubt that Colorado’s major news outlets will get around to covering his position on abortion, now that he’s the official GOP nominee for U.S. Senate.

In questioning Buck on this issue, reporters should follow the lead of KHOW talk-radio host Craig Silverman, whose detailed questioning of Buck Aug 4 on this issue sets a high standard for journalists who interview Buck about abortion in the future.

Notice in the transcript below how Silverman leads Buck through a line of questioning that ends with the most important and relevant answers.

He first establishes that Buck believes if you allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest “you’re taking a life as a result of the crime of the father.”

Silverman then asks Buck the key question of whether his personal position on this issue would guide his actions if he became a U.S. Senator.

Buck responds that he would indeed favor a federal law banning abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

It’s worth taking a moment to read the transcript of Silverman’s interview with Buck below (KHOW, 630 AM, Aug. 4, 5 p.m. hour):

Craig: You’re saying even in the cases of rape or incest, you’re not for abortion?

Buck: That’s correct. You know, Craig, if you believe that life begins at conception, which I do, then with the exception of rape and incest, you’re taking a life as a result of the crime of the father. And even though I recognize that the terrible misery that that life was conceived under, it is still taking a life in my view, and that’s wrong.

Craig: Right. And I believe life begins at conception. I think that’s a matter of science. To me the question is, when does somebody become a human being and entitled to the same rights and protections that any human being in America deserves, or frankly around the world. To me, that’s the debate. How did you come to your position? Is it informed by your religion?

Buck: It’s my upbringing. It’s my faith. It’s my life experiences, the three things that have brought me to that position.

Craig: And have you always been there, or is this something that you’ve evolved to.

Buck: No, I think it’s something I’ve evolved to. It’s something that I realized in my mid-twenties. I certainly as a teenager hadn’t thought through the positions. As I got out of school and was observing things and growing in my faith I came to that position.

Craig: And would it transfer into the legal world. You’re going to be a legislator if you’re voted into the United States Senate. Would you create a law that would prohibit abortion in the cases of rape or incest?

Buck: I would favor that position in law, yes.

Craig: …Let’s say, god forbid, that a 13-year-old boy impregnates his 14-year-old sister and does it by forced rape. You’re saying that the 14-year-old and anybody involved in the abortion should be prosecuted, if they choose to terminate the pregnancy, either through surgical abortion or a morning after pill?

Buck: I think it is wrong, Craig. I think it is morally wrong. And you are taking a very small group of cases and making a point about abortion. We have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of abortions in this country every year. And the example that you give is a very poignant one but an extremely rare occurrence.

Craig: Incest happens. I’m sure your office prosecutes it. And we know rape and sexual assault happen all the time, and your office prosecutes it. So it’s not completely rare. I agree that most abortions have nothing to do with that. I don’t know if I’d go with rare.

Tweet
Share

Comments

45 thoughts on “CO reporters, who’ve essentially ignored Buck’s abortion stance, should follow lead of radio host”

  1. I think Buck has backed himself into a deep, dark hole. And he’s still digging. At the same time, I think, Amendment 62 will make the issue even a bigger problem for Buck, Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo as well as for down ticket Republicans.

    If Democrats don’t hammer Buck et al with the abortion issue, outside groups will. It’s all they’ve got to use against Republicans this year. And Dems know how to hammer good GOP candidates to defeat with one stupid comment about abortion or Amendment 62.

    Any GOP candidate who agrees with Buck and Amendment 62 supporters is done. Even though a growing majority of Americans oppose abortion, a huge majority don’t want Ken Buck, Dan Maes or Tom Tancredo in their bedrooms.

    Clearly, the anti-abortionist are hoping to elect Ken Buck and pass Amendment 62. They want to get a test case before the Supreme Court before Obama can stack it with libertarian, small government liberals who would smack them down.

    As far as the media are concerned, I think the problem continues to be that they have to focus on the hot news of the moment. They don’t have the space or time to tackle less newsy topics like Buck’s abortion comments.

    That means that we bloggers must do the reporting, analyzing and hammering. So far, I think we’re doing a pretty good job of trying to keep candidates honest and voters informed. We may have only a few thousand readers, but we’re read by opinion leaders.

    While I want Buck to win, I also want bloggers to force him to back off his extreme positions on abortion. He may have deep believes, but he also has big ambitions.

    Republicans who haven’t read The Blueprint or haven’t understood its main message don’t understand that the fact that Wayne Allard and Bill Owens won despite their anti-abortion positions is no longer relevant. Today’s Republicans must deal with a much stronger attacks by Democrat and outside groups than Allard and Owens ever imagined.

    I am very worried that Buck is in big trouble because of his religious beliefs, the fact he doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state and his willingness to use Big Government to force his beliefs down the throats of All Americans.

    1. I sincerely doubt that. But putting aside the issue of your honesty and character, the majority of Americans today are pro-life. In fact, there are a large chunk of pro-life Democrats; remember the whole debate about federal funding of abortions in the health care bill? It nearly sunk it. So I don’t think this will be as big of an issue as you guys think.

          1. that a majority of Americans are anti-abortion. The polling on that site pretty well buries that misconception.

            While BJ ignores facts, others may not – thus the link.

    2. I don’t agree with Buck’s stance on abortion but it is his stance and he can have it.  I don’t believe that this will hurt him that much in the general election.

      This election cycle is about the economy, now illegal immigration with SB1070, and also is a referendum on Obama.  With Bennet so closely tied to Obama I think that will hurt him more than abortion will Buck.  Plus without a good choice in the gubernatorial race, state Republicans will turn to this race as the winnable race in Colorado.

      1. CO reporters are ignoring it because no one cares.  If he starts putting his abortion position in TV commercials, then people will start to take notice and care.

      2. You think that women voters will allow Buck to roll things back to the back alley days and coat hangers?

        You can bet as the campaign moves forward, Buck will have to answer this question time and time again. Given his Quayle-like proclivity for the bon mot,,,

    3. It’s running longer thematic pieces in the print edition. There was the Norton piece on her CDPHE phase. The McInnis pieces on his evolving position on abortion, on donors to his congressional campaigns. The Buck piece on his DA issues.

      So I think The Post will do a piece on the Senate candidates’ views on women’s issues broadly, or narrowly on abortion.  

  2. For example:

    Buck responds that he would indeed favor a federal law banning abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

    Both Buck and Silverman are attorneys and no fools….Congress cannot pass a law which would outlaw abortion, because currently abortion is a civil right, secured by the Constitution.  So both men know that to be for or against Congress passing a law outlawing abortion makes no sense.  The Supreme Court time and time again has affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion, with some regulation allowed by states in the second and third trimester.  So WTF game are these two jokers playing?

    So, the real question is:  Given your position on abortion, Buck, how would you use your Senate position to implement your beliefs?  Would you only vote for Supreme Court candidates who would promise to vote to overturn Roe?  Would you vote for a law to outlaw abortion knowing it would face immediate court challenge and that this would be a strategy to get the issue before a conservative supreme court, again?

    Buck’s position is not extreme.  It is the official position of the catholic church of which there are 65 million people in the US…who totally ignore this position of the church except when it comes to finding an excuse to vote against the democratics.

    what bs.

      1. This was my comment after reading the transcript of that interview:

        Buck is no fool.

        He is separating himself out from the republican pack on the issue of abortion.  The Republican pack are using the abortion issue to pursue states’ rights.  In another words, they argue that roe v. wade was decided wrongly because abortion is a medical matter and should rightly be decided by the individual states, under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.  I believe that Colorado’s own Wizzer White argued this in his dissenting opinion to Roe.  

        Buck is, I believe, correct to argue that a right to life or a right to abortion should be in the realm of civil rights and therefore belong to the provence of the federal government.

        This position is really contrary to the current standard republican argument that abortion should be left to the states.   However to say that abortion is “a federal issue,” and then to support the personhood amendment to a state constitution is hypocritical and he should be called on it.  

        SAVE THE 14th AMENDMENT – Vote for the Democrats.

        I will reiterate.  The repubs generally argue that Roe should be overturned on the basis that abortion is a state’s right’s issue.  If that were the rationale for overturning Roe, then there would be no room for Congress to act.  So the real problem with Buck, IMHO, is his inconsistency.  

        I don’t know Buck’s religion, but everything he says is consistent with catholic doctrine….

          1. Nor would they be happy if the SCt overturned all gun control legislation.

            They would lose those fund raising opportunities as would the evangies and the NRA. The GOP, evangies and NRA thrive on being able to say the Dems want to take your gun and make your wife/daughter/mom have an abortion.

          2. I am describing the republican political strategy to make as much money and political hay from the abortion issue w/o changing the status quo..as Grey in the Mountains notes further on….

            No real pro-lifer expects the supreme court to overturn roe on the basis that life from conception forward is fully protected under the due process clause of the fifth amendment. ….not that that couldn’t happen…but it is not part of any public pronouncement.

            The states rights argument is promoted as opposed to mounting a campaign to pass an Human Life Amendment.

            Promoting a human life amendment would require republicans to vote on that issue evidently, somewhere, sometime….an action they have managed to avoid for almost thirty years…while still screaming about abortion and racking in the moola on the issue….

              1. But frankly, I am not that familiar with Buck’s positions.  Other than his commitment to “call a grand jury” to investigate Villafuerte and Ritter.  

    2. Buck would have to answer that:

      1.  He would only vote for judges who would support any and all abortion restrictions.

      2.  He would vote for any and all restrictions on IUDs, emergency contraception, and funding for same.

      3.  He would support the most severe criminal sanctions for violations of any abortion statutes (for example, the death penalty for a doctor who performed an abortion prohibited by law, or a woman who had such an abortion).

      4.  He would support intrusive government monitoring of women’s health to ensure that no potentially pregnant woman does anything that might endanger a fertilized egg.

  3. Ok, I’m interviewing Ken Buck this Friday. I have an hour and that means 10 – 12 questions. I want to focus on what we will get in terms of votes, effort, etc. in D.C. Since the Supreme Court is the one setting policy on abortion, is this worth taking the time? Or is it more important to drill down and get details on items our Senator will be working on and voting on?

    Yes it’s a great gotcha question. I can think of a couple of great gotcha questions for Senator Bennet too. But do those questions help people in the middle figure out who will do the best job for them in D.C.?

    1. Well, it is one of the most important policy differences between the two candidates. And it is a clear difference of position.

      But why clarify it? As you point out it’s not like the US Senate would ever have anything to do with making law or changing the law. Or creating new law.

      We wanted health care reform. We almost couldn’t get it because of legitimate difference of position on just this question alone.  But why clarify the candidate’s position?

      But it might be politically embarrassing for one candidate. So by all means don’t clarify that candidate’s position.

      1. That to me is a biggie – I want my questions to add to the conversation. Has Buck been unclear at all? I think he’s made it very plain that he’s against it in all cases. I can ask him to say so again, but what do we learn from that?

        Keep in mind the purpose of the interview is not to convince a candidate that they should change their opinion on anything – that would be a waste of both of our time. The purpose is to get a detailed picture of where they stand on key issues.

        Do you see anything new to learn from either candidate on this question? I think they’ve both been very detailed on this already. But if there is something that has been unclear, yes please do suggest what to ask for further details on.

        1. Mr, Buck – you’ve been clear about your preference for prohibiting abortion in almost all cases.

          If abortion was outlawed, what do you believe is the appropriate penalty or punishment would be for those who choose them anyway?

          As a US Senator would you introduce legislation to prohibit abortion consistent with your preference?

          Do you consider Roe v Wade the settled law of the land – or would you seek to only approve SCOTUS niminees who would overturn it?

          Would abortion become a litmus test in other ways?  Say – health care reform, or other areas?

          1. When I interviewed Buck, I asked him promise to support a Constitutional amendment that would balance the federal budget. What are the chances that such an amendment will go anywhere in your first term. None, he said, unless there are extrordinary circumstances.

            Maybe this abortion talk is also meant to tell the antiabortionists that he’s with him. Maybe he’ll get out of the hole if you ask about the chances that he’ll get to vote for an anti-abortion law he envisions that has a chance to pass in his first or second term. The answer most likely will be zero.

      2. Congress can’t do anything that directly confronts Roe v. Wade, but that doesn’t mean it can’t make laws regarding abortion.

        For example, under Roe v. Wade, states (and the Federal government) can prohibit abortion in the third trimester.  Congress could presumably make getting or performing a third trimester a crime.  If Buck thinks a fetus is a person, would he support prosecuting a third trimester abortion as murder?  Would he support the death penalty in such cases?

        Further, Roe v. Wade does not restrict government action to protect a fetus.  Thus, Buck might be asked what legislative initiatives he would support under the guise of fetal protection.

        Finally, “pro-life” extremists like Buck believe that common contraceptive methods are abortafacients.  Would he support a ban on them?  Prevent funding under health care reform?

        1. David, the supereme court has upheld, over and over again, that any prohibition on abortion, by the government or the individual state, MUST allow an exception for the life and health of the mother.  PERIOD.  (Although, there was recently a decision on the health of the mother could be disregarded…(.I think they upheld the ban on partial birth abortion even if the health of the mother was compromised ) because there were other methods to perform the abortion.

          My concern is that the abortion argument allows the repubs to reiterate their “concern for life…etc.”…it sets up a possible scenario where ole chaput, the archbishop,, would tell catholics they could not vote for anyone who supports abortion rights….it doesn’t resolve anything…I would let the personhood and the anti-personhood carry the water on this issue.

          The one I care about could be related…and that is Family Medical Leave Act as well as the law protecting pregnant women from job discrimination. Now, David, I don’t know if you employ enough people to be covered by this act and I know that many employers consider it a pain in the butt….a republican congress could very easily vote to annul this act, without worrying about the supreme court or the states or anything else…….this could mean that woman could give birth and not be allowed ANY time off from their job.  ….if a kid got sick…like with cancer….parents would have no right to take time from the job…..

          Again, in my household of many generations and many colors, we have experience with this kind of nightmare…before FMLA…..a kid sick, a parent couldn’t take time off from the job because the job carried the health insurance which the kid needed.   I hope to hell that none of you have ever been in a children’s cancer ward……all the stuffed rabbits and candy strippers don’t make it up to a kid, scared to death, in pain, for the presence of a parent.  Ask the cowboy if that is what he wants to go back to…some gobble goop about states’s rights or free enterprise.

          GEt him to say that a working mom should not have the right to be with her kid with cancer w/o losing her job.

          Ask Buck if he wants to go back to those days.  I bet he will say yes.

          1. My point is that anti-abortion extremists have lots of ways to restrict women’s abortion rights within the existing framework of Roe.  Buck should be asked how far he would go–i.e., what is his legislative agenda with respect to abortion.

            1. DAvid is DavidThi808 who is going to be interviewing Buck and had asked for questions to ask Buck.  I really don’t think that raising the abortion question is good strategy for all the myriad reasons I had given.  But, I am posting in the wrong place, so forgive me my  confusion.

              But, I still think that pursuing the abortion issue is not good  policy.  I don’t think it means anything.  And, David only has ten or twelve questions and I would hate to see him bogged down on that one issue.

    2. Abortion is an issue that leads a majority of women to vote for Dems. His position is far outside the mainstream. Doesn’t it make his task of getting elected that much harder having adopted such a hard-line stance?

      Women also care about education (it will affect their decision more than men’s) – what’s his stance on Republican calls to abolish the Dept of Education?

    3. There are several hundred thousand Unaffiliated voters in this state that this issue matters to a great deal and sometimes is the deciding factor in their vote. And this issue isn’t just in front of the Supreme Court. Duh. Or are you unaware of the Egg Amendment on the November ballot in this state?

      2. Same question I put to MADCO above – is there anything in Ken Buck’s stance on abortion that’s unclear? I know you both disagree with that stance (as do I). But the purpose of the interview is to find out where he stands on issues that we do not have full details on.

        If there are questions on this he or Senator Bennet have not answered, I am very open to asking those. But repeating a question he has already answered several times doesn’t add to the conversation.

        1. Because it is not clear to me at all whether or not he is advocating that a woman who is raped by a stranger or family member should become a criminal for choosing to terminate a pregnancy she had no say in. Does he advocate criminalizing abortion to that degree? Is it just the that should be charged with a crime? Is the victim also a criminal?

          I’ve never heard him fully explain his position. If you have, please link to it.

        2. to my list of things I don’t know. I’m not trying to convince Buck of anything. It’s his religious views that shape his political ideology.

          I would just appreciate clarification because to date, no one has asked him and apparently, you have no stomach for being the first.  

        3. If he favors a total repeal of abortion rights, what would he advise in the case of a pregnancy that will in all likelihood according to informed medical opinions kill the mother if allowed to go forward?

          What about the role of genetic testing? If a mother knows the fetus will be essentially brain dead, or severely damaged by a genetic abnormality or an illness, what is his position? Force the potential child to live..and I say that advisedly…a life that is essentially a non existence?

          These are not easy or clear cut issues by any means for anyone. For Buck to pretend that they are easily solved….hardly believable.  

    4. because he’s not running away from them. It’s basic information for voters, along with his other positions.

      Good for you for interviewing him.

  4. And fits right in with the radical religious racist right that is in control of the Republican Party at this time in history.

    I didn’t see anything in the interview that mentioned his position on abortion to save the life of the woman. Anyone know?  

  5. Why don’t you ask Buck…

    Since it was the Republican Administration of George Bush whose policies drove this economy into the deepest hole since the Depression, how would Buck view those policies, and would he favor a return to the no regulatory oversight of Wall Street, tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy, etc as a way out of this mess as so many of the present Republican legislators are advocating?

    How would he have designed a program to address the tremendous economic woes, and how would it have been different from the one taken by the Obama administration? Specifics, please.  

  6. Would he support the death penalty for anyone involved in the abortion of a fetus caused by rape or incest?

    Silverman was headed in that direction and Buck squirted by. Buck said he’d “support a law prohibiting abortion in cases of rape or incest.”  So, what’s the punishment for violating that law?  He believes it’s murder, and I guess he supports the death penalty in murder cases, so would he support the death penalty for violating the law he wants to create?  Get a yes or no answer.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

105 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!