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%
August 14, 2010 04:15 PM UTC
38 Comments
Ken Buck, a Republican, is pro life. Just like the majority of Americans. Not crazy.
The majority of Coloradans have defeated by large margins anti abortion amendents at least 5 times.
Ever hear of that funny thing called the Death Penalty? Probably what Buck would consider appropriate punishment for the “crime” of abortion, to answer Madco’s question.
So really Buck is just Numb-Nuts Anti-Choice when it comes to women and their right to choose.
Buck is anti choice
If you are for abortion you support the death of the baby.
Assume Roe v Wade is overturned and the state of Colorado undoes almost 50 years of voter choices and outlaws abortion.
What’s the appropriate punishment for those who conspire to terminate a pregnancy?
Please describe the process by which they would “terminate” this pregnancy.
Intentional pharmaceutical or surgical induced termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus.
stabbing a baby in the head.
See, questions are interrogatory. Perhaps I believe you know something that I do not. Perhaps I merely want your opinion.
This is one the latter kind.
You may not have an opinion. You may choose not to share it even if you do.
It was before my time, but the way I understand it is over forty years ago Colorado became the first state to legalize the procedure under specific circumstance. And part of the reason was the practical recognition that the procedure was going to occur legal or not. That somehow many women would feel like it was their choice to have a child or not.
So when DA Buck says we should return the law to how it was before, that abortion should be illegal in most circumstances, it is a legitimate question to ask what should be the penalty for a woman who chooses, and a doctor or other medical professional who conspire to assist her, to have the procedure anyway.
I believe in the death penalty for certain transgressions, including premeditated murder. Do you? Does Mr. Buck?
The penalty, whatever it is, should apply to the doctor who performs the abortion.
So if you believe abortion is murder, you only want to prosecute the contract killer, and not whoever hired him or her?
I just know that stabbing a baby in the head and sucking its brains out is a grave injustice. Sorry if you think that makes me crazy.
You say you don’t know how the legal system should handle it, but you are working for a Senate candidate who says there should be laws governing abortion. How does he propose it be handled? Do you agree with the method he proposes? If he doesn’t propose a method, then how can you support his position, since you don’t know what his position is?
Suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned, and the government can make laws punishing abortion. If you are going to be internally consistent, then you have several options:
1. Abortion is murder. If a woman hires a doctor to abort her baby, both she and the doctor have committed murder and both she and the doctor should be punished for that murder. The murder is definitely premeditated, so it’s first degree murder, and the punishment for first degree murder is either death or life in prison without parole.
2. Abortion is defined in law as some other kind of homicide. If you don’t think the woman and doctor should be executed or imprisoned for life, but you want the law to acknowledge that abortion is the taking of human life, then define it as some other degree of homicide. What would you propose?
3. Abortion is defensible. We currently allow people to take the life of another under certain circumstances: capital punishment, war, self defense, make-my-day, insanity. If you want recognition that abortion takes a human life, but under circumstances that permit that act, then define it as such. Would this satisfy you?
BJ, I’m really interested in your response to this. If your goal is realized and Roe v. Wade is overturned, then there will have to be tangible legal consequences, won’t there? Don’t you have an obligation to think through those consequences, and take a position as to what you think the law should do with women who seek abortions and the doctors who provide them? If you’re going to call yourself “pro-life” and say abortion should be outlawed, there are logical consequences to that position that you must also think through and decide.
What say you?
There is no simple, sound-bitey, snappy answer that is on point so bjw will not have an on point reply.
Neither will Buck.
In fact, I”d expect any minute Buck will start talking about the settled law of the land and how upon reflection the doctor-patient privacy thingy really should not be invaded by the government. His hope will be that the anti-choicers will listen to the dog whistle and stay with him and that the pro-choicers will talk themselves into believing him on that because they agree on cutting and running in Afghanistan or repealing the death panels or something.
Random combinations of letters may be pretty, but they don’t tell me anything.
even if your answer is “I have no answer”
Even information rich combinations of letters don’t seem to tell you anything.
However I don’t think you can make the case that babies should face capital punishment, war, etc. Calling abortion self defense would be criminalizing pregnancy. I don’t think pregnant women should be classified as insane either. But it’s all a moot point because it’s not going to change anyway. Electing one pro-life senator is hardly going to make a difference.
Excellent way to once again wiggle out of actually answering anything that requires you, or your chosen candidate, to do any thinking. The idea behind posing policy questions of potential candidates (and their shills) has nothing to do with whether they are able to enact those policies. It has everything to do with gaining insight into how they think, where they stand, and what kind of principles they have.
You continually prove that you have no substance nor much in the way of principles.
That’s the choice. You and I might disagree.
Put it in scare quotes, just for you.
Or does he only consider a life threatening pregancy a valid exception.
Even the most extreme pro-lifers are willing to consider an exception if the mother’s life is truly at risk. They are wary, however, of “health” exceptions for fear that women and their doctors can come up with some sort of health risk to terminate any pregnancy.
I assume you are aware of the nun who was a hospital administrator confronted with the case of a pregnant woman (mother of 4 air-breathing children) who came into the Catholic hospital gravely ill with heart failure. Doctors said continuing the pregnancy would be life-threatening (her risk of mortality was nearly 100%). She was too sick to be moved to another operating room, much less another hospital. She was 11 weeks pregnant, long before viability. Continuing the pregnancy would have resulted in one dead mom, one dead baby, four motherless children. The doctors recommended abortion, and the mother agreed. The nun allowed the abortion to proceed.
The bishop said she was automatically excommunicated and should be expelled from her order. http://www.npr.org/templates/s…
In your example above, she was still allowed to have the procedure. Excommunication is a different topic entirely and one that would clearly be outside of any legislative discussion.
Even the staunchest pro-lifers I know are willing to concede an exception if the mother’s life is clearly at risk. Proving that may be another matter.
According to his website, Buck’s position would allow an exception for the life of the mother. He doesn’t say anything about a health exception.
A near-100% risk of mortality wasn’t good enough for our friend the bishop. I wonder if it would be good enough for Mr. Buck.
So now the battle for our convictions begins; a woman’s right to choose,
comprehensive immigration reform, green energy investment, refusing to return to the don ‘t tax the riich and spend (helping the Chinese more than Americans) policies of the Bush Adminstraion. Fighting for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the USA. The finest set of documents on political history the world has ever seen.
By all means, please continue. As for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The TEA Party is the group fighting for the founding documents; liberals believe they are “living” documents that can change at the whim of the people.
Denocrats aren’t giving an inch on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Of course we don’t believe that African-Americans are 3/5 of a person that some Republicans would like to believe.
Bush/Cheney caused this crisis.To that there is no doubr.
Keeping the banks open has been a major accomplishment from the debacle of don’t tax the rich,don’t regulate Wall St,and spend 5 trillion dollars.
for amending it. That is the proper way to address any problems that arise, not a judge reinterpreting it.
be legal? If that’s the case what, in your words, is the responsibility of the Judicial Branch?
And it specifies that any powers not specified in the Constitution are left to the states or the people. The responsibility of the Judicial Branch is to uphold the Constitution. That’s why you always hear about things being “ruled unconstitutional”.
of trying to vote on other people’s Constitutional rights. By your own admission it is the Judicial Branch’s responsibility to step in and correct this right? The majority of “the people” can not vote down the rights of the minority?
Or would that be “activist judges” corrupting blah blah blah?
the concept of “checks and balances.”
I don’t know when they quit teaching civics in High School, but he’s clearly a victim.