October 01, 2010 09:10 PM UTC

Does Buck's support of common birth control mean he's become pro-choice since the GOP primary?

•  
• by: Jason Salzman

I really am trying to stop writing about sperms, eggs, zygotes, implantation, and birth control, but these normally quiet yet essential topics keep arising in the Denver media.

The Denver Post states today that the Personhood Amendment would ban common forms of birth control, which is one reason the newspaper came out against Amendment 62.

We know that Michael Bennet has been pointing out that Ken Buck is opposed to common forms of birth control. This is based not only on Buck’s hard-line abortion stance but also his endorsement of the Personhood Amendment.

Buck’s campaign first tried to tell journalists that Buck supported common forms of birth control AND was in support of  the Personhood Amendment.

But then Buck acknowledged that Amendment 62 would ban common forms of birth control, and he un-endorsed the measure, saying he does not want to ban common forms of birth control.

Still, as recently as last weekend, Buck has stated that he supports “Personhood as a concept.”  

But if this is true, he’d still oppose common forms of birth control, which potentially kill fertilized human eggs. And as a legislator, he’d presumably vote to ban them.

Unless Buck is…pro-choice. This would allow him to support the Personhood concept AND support common forms of birth control.

That’s what the Post editorial board should ask Buck.

Does his support for common forms of birth control mean that he’s now become pro-choice? If not, what gives?