Radio host should have questioned Buck when he compared his bout with cancer to pregnancy

(Open mouth, insert cowboy boot – promoted by Colorado Pols)

POLS UPDATE: Salon picks up the story:

Fast-forward three-plus years later, and Buck’s at it again. The goal this time? Don’t say anything stupidly and overtly sexist. That shouldn’t be too hard, right?

Turns out, yep, that is too hard! Speaking on a talk radio show on Wednesday, Buck attempted to explain his anti-choice absolutism — he opposes abortion in all cases, including rape and incest — by likening a woman’s desire to control her own body while pregnant to how he felt when he had cancer.


Apparently trying to connect to women voters, who arguably cost him a U.S. Senate seat in 2010, Ken Buck appeared on a Denver radio station Monday and discussed the differences and similarities between pregnancy and his recent bout with cancer.

Asked by 560-AM KLZ talk-show host Randy Corporon about his abortion position, Buck, who's running again for U.S. Senate this year, said:

Buck: "Yes, I am pro-life. While I understand a woman wants to be in control of her body.–it's certainly the feeling that I had when I was a cancer patient, I wanted to be in control of the decisions that were made concerning my body–there is another fundamental issue at stake. And that's the life of the unborn child. And I hold that life dear and precious and believe we have to do everything we can to protect the life of the unborn." 

So Buck is saying that his successful battle with cancer is like pregnancy insofar as they both require decisions affecting a human body. But for a cancer patient like Buck, they are personal medical decisions, and Buck was glad to be able to make them. But for a woman who is pregnant, difficult as it may be, she shouldn’t be afforded the same freedom to make decisions affecting her body.

In 2010, Buck made no secret about his strong anti-abortion position, enthusiastically repeating his opposition to all abortion, even for rape or incest. In one radio interview, he expressed his opposition to abortion, even for a girl raped by her teen brother.

Now Buck drives his anti-abortion point home in the starkest of language by saying how happy he is that the government didn’t dictate his health decisions when he had cancer. But pregnant women should have no choice.

I was waiting for Corporon to offer a peep of an opposing view, to bring up the complexities surrounding a decision to have an abortion, and to ask Buck about all the women who don't see this as a one-size-fits-all issue.

I'm still waiting.

On the political side, Corporon could have asked Buck if he's worried, by comparing his cancer to a woman's pregnancy, of looking like Todd Akin, whose thoughts about "legitimate rape" sunk his 2010 bid for a Senate seat in Missouri. But Corporon moved on, leaving listeners wanting more explanation from Buck.

follow Jason Salzman on twitter @bigmediablog

11 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DawnPatrol says:

    Yet one more lethal arrow in Sen. Udall's already-overflowing quiver.

    Thank you for having the stomach to continue monitoring and exposing these wormy weasels to the wider, saner, non-hate radio world, Jason.

  2. dwyer says:

    This is enraging.  The question that should have been asked, immediately to old Buck was:  If a woman, already a mother with small children, is pregnant and then diagnosed with cancer.  She needs the chemotherapy to survive.  The chemo would kill the fetus.  What would Buck advise her to do….under the laws he would like to legislate?    That question should be asked every single time Buck shows up anywhere….that a real citizen has a change to question him.  

    This, of course, is not the philosophical underpinnings of reproductive choice, but it is something that Buck should be forced to relate to…..especially since no man will ever have to face this situation.

  3. dwyer says:

    Correction:  "has a chance"

    I am so mad I can't write straight.

  4. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    Further proof that if the Ken Buck of today had a time machine to go back to 2010 he would make another set of mistakes that would likely keep him from winning. 

  5. DavieDavie says:

    Wow, so since Buck "chose" to get cancer by not taking all precautions against getting cancer, maybe for consistency, he should have been forced to carry his cancer to full term.

    Same effect for a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by the forced pregnancy.

    But then again, he's a man, so gets to make those choices for himself.  Sharia law rules in Buckland.

  6. DavieDavie says:

    But wait!  It turns out that Republicans in Congress know something we don't — the reason to be against abortion is because it is a job creator!  Geez, if I'd only known!

    But for some reason, our own Troglodyte Rep. DeGette just doesn't seem to get it:

    “After years of stalling, Congressional Republicans have finally released their jobs plan: attacking women’s health,” they said. “To paraphrase our old friend, Rep. Barney Frank, Republicans in Washington believe that life begins at conception but ends at birth — they want to eliminate contraception and abortion, but won’t support early childhood education like Head Start or universal Pre-K, pay equity for single mothers, affordable child care, or SNAP benefits. It’s time to stop attacking women’s health and start paying attention to the economic issues that Americans really care about.”

    When will women understand that only white, Republican men know what is best?

    • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

      I have been saying for years that rather than awarding these people their preferred title "pro-life" or the progressive "anti-choice", the more descripive "pro-birth" should be used. As noted above, once a pregnancy turns into a baby, the righties seem to lose interest. That's not entirely true. They're interested in making it impossible for a single mom to raise a kid. I think the second part of their plan will eventually be to craft away to outlaw  single motherhood. Then, at (forced) birth the child can be removed from the mother and given to a nice Christian couple who will bring it up "properly". Where didi I ever get a crazy idea like this? Did anyoneever read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale?

      • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

        Oops! away =a way, didi=did I,  anyoneever =anyone ever Sorry, I've got a cold and I think it's making me type badly. 

        • BlueCatBlueCat says:

          Since they oppose all assistance to low income parents that would seem to be the goal. No birth control, no choice, no way for parents who can't afford a lager family to keep the baby . What else can they have in mind but a supply of babies for adoption?  One catch. Of course that would be for the white babies. What about the others?

  7. Urban Snowshoer says:

    By Buck's logic on cancer versus pregnancy , shouldn't chemotheraphy and radiation treatment also be illegal?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.