U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
September 09, 2010 10:05 PM UTC

Fact checking the TV fact-checkers: Buck opposes common forms of birth control

  • 45 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Interesting back-and-forth here, plus it includes the first ever appearance of the phrase “tubal ligation” on Colorado Pols. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

You’re excused for missing it, but there’s some disagreement among local TV reporters about whether Ken Buck’s anti-abortion stance means he’d oppose common birth-control methods.

Three local TV news stations fact checked the segment of a Michael Bennet ad stating that Ken Buck “wants to ban common forms of birth control,” and each station came up with a different conclusion.

News4 called it opinion, using this logic: “Buck’s position is, life begins at conception. By far, the most common forms of birth control, condoms and the pill, work before conception. And Buck is not opposed to those.” (News4 provided no citations for this.)

7News called it a fact, lumping it together with Buck’s position against abortion, even in the case of rape and incest, and stating that “this is Buck’s position on abortion.” (No citations are provided.)

9News got uncharacteristically squishy on us and couldn’t decide if the statement was true or false. 9News told viewers that the veracity of Bennet’s ad “likely depends on what you consider common forms of birth control.” (As with all of its Truth Tests, 9News did provide detailed citations, one of which referred to an email from Buck’s campaign stating that Buck opposes birth control methods that “would keep a fertilized egg from implanting, like hormone-based birth control methods, some other forms of the pill, IUDs, RU-486 and what’s known as the morning-after pill.”)

To get the facts on the table about the impact of birth-control measures on fertilized human eggs, I emailed Nanette Santoro, MD, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, at the University of Colorado.

She agreed to provide information, as long as I emphasized that she does not advocate any political position but instead provides current scientific thinking on the topic.

I asked her which human birth control methods don’t damage a fertilized egg.

She emailed me this list of barrier methods: Condom, diaphragm, Essure method of blocking the fallopian tubes. She also included vasectomy and tubal ligation.

I asked which methods do cause damage to fertilized eggs.

Her reply:

“Combination birth control pills [made with hormones progestin and estrogen], vaginal rings, or patches interrupt ovulation and do not harm fertilized eggs. Eggs are not released in these cases.

Progestin-only pills, or implants, had been long thought to cause a hostile environment to the fertilized egg. The lining of the uterus is rendered unreceptive in this line of reasoning, and that is why women do not conceive. This conceptualization has led to the belief that these methods interrupt a fertilized egg. Therefore, a person who believes that life begins at conception would understandably be averse to such a method. However, newer research indicates that progestin-only methods make it harder for the sperm to get to the egg by affecting cervical mucus permeability to sperm, and may also interfere with the motility of the fallopian tubes, making it hard for sperm to get up there or for the eggs to get down. Therefore, the accumulated data now weighs more in favor of these methods not interfering with fertilized eggs. This is an important change in thinking.

Methods like the progestin IUD, Mirena, may also act this way and may not inhibit the fertilized egg but may prevent fertilization from occurring. The copper IUD is more likely to interfere with fertilization.”

I asked her: When you say the data “weighs more in favor” of progestin-only pills “not interfering” with fertilized eggs, do you mean that they could potentially interfere but probably won’t? This would be important to those who believe life begins at conception.

She replied:

“I think it’s unlikely but there is never any definitive evidence in that regard. So if I were a sort of ‘agnostic’ on this question of when life begins, I would feel comfort at the fact that my progestin-only method was unlikely to be interfering with a fertilized egg, and would sleep well at night.  However, if I were a very black-and-white thinker, and could not tolerate the possibility that a fertilized egg might be interfered with by my birth control method-no matter how small the possibility-it would be best for me to choose another method.”

I did a bit more research and then asked her this question: Even if taken properly, the combination pill that stops ovulation has a failure rate, meaning that sometimes ovulation occurs and an egg is fertilized accidentally. Very rare, I know. But if ovulation occurs, is implantation affected? In other words, is the accidental fertilized egg less likely to be able to implant in the uterus of a woman who’s been taking anti-ovulation pills?

Santoro replied:

“It’s not known with certainty what happens when a woman who uses birth control pills regularly ovulates.  Usually there is an error or an interaction with another medication that lowers the pill’s potency.  Because the pill contains both estrogen and progesterone, the lining is likely to be receptive to the fertilized egg.  But in some women, the lining is actually stimulated by too much progesterone.  In these cases, it gets relatively thin and might be inhospitable to a pregnancy.  It is hard to know whether this is even a credible mechanism, though, because the pill also inhibits sperm entry into the uterus and alters tubal motility.”

I asked her one last question: What kind of birth control pill is the most common, combination or progestin-only? Or are they about the same in popularity?

Her reply: I think they are all about the same in popularity.

So you can interpret Santoro’s facts for yourself, since Santoro is not taking a political position here. She’s just offering information.

But as I interpret it, if you believe that killing a fertilized egg is murder, as Ken Buck does, then you wouldn’t tolerate even the most remote chance that your birth-control pill could cause murder by potentially stopping implantation, in rare cases, of a fertilized egg that otherwise could have implanted in the uterus.  

So based on Buck’s campaign statement to 9News that he opposes birth control methods that “would keep a fertilized egg from implanting,” then he would logically oppose all types of birth-control pills, which are the most common type of birth control in America, because all of them could potentially do this.

In an excellent paper published Aug. 31, Ari Armstrong and Diana Hseih arrive at the same conclusion stating:

“While most often the pill acts to prevent fertilization, sometimes it can prevent a zygote from implanting in the uterus,” they write, adding that the birth-control-pill manufacturers, Ortho Tri-Cyden and Trinessa, state that their pills alter the lining of the uterus.”

So as you can see below, only the fact checkers at 7News appear to have properly evaluated the segment of Bennet’s ad addressing birth control.

7News reported categorically that it’s true that Ken Buck wants to ban common forms of birth control, properly combining his abortion position with his birth-control stance. That’s correct.

9News was half right, pointing out that Buck opposes birth control methods but failing to dig deeply enough into the matter to understand that all birth-control pills would be opposed by Buck, based on his own criteria for protecting fertilized eggs.

And News4 got it wrong by claiming Buck doesn’t oppose the pill when, in fact, he has said he opposes some types of birth-control pills as well as any birth-control method that makes implantation less likely, which could include all pills, at least in rare instances.

Now reporters should ask Buck himself what he has to say to women who are using forms of birth control that he opposes. Over 17 million women in America who use the pill, plus millions of others who use forms of the IUD and other methods, and would like to know.

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF LOCAL TV NEWS STORIES ON BENNET’S TV AD

News4 Reality Check: Bennet Jumps in with Attack on Buck

News4: The final claim in the ad is aimed at Buck’s pro-life stance.

AD: Ken Buck even wants to ban common forms of birth control.

News4: That’s opinion. Buck’s position is, life begins at conception. By far, the most common forms of birth control, condoms and the pill, work before conception. And Buck is not opposed to those.

7News Investigators: “Fact or Fiction: Is Ken Buck too Extreme?”

AD:

Narrator: “Ken Buck wants to ban common forms of birth control. And his view on abortion?”

Buck: “I am pro-life and I’ll answer the next question, I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest.”

FACT:

This is Buck’s stance on abortion. He has said that the only exception is when the life of the mother is at risk. During an interview with Craig Silverman on KHOW radio, Buck reinforced his position on abortion.

“If you believe that life begins at conception, which I do, then the exception of rape or incest, you’re taking a life as a result of the crime of the father, and even though I recognize that it’s a terrible misery that that life was conceived under, it is still taking a life in my view, and it’s wrong,” said Buck.

9News “Truth Test: More Context for Buck’s comments.”

QUOTE: Does Ken Buck speak for you? Buck supports banning common forms of birth control.

TRUTH: This likely depends on what you consider common forms of birth control.

Buck believes life “begins at conception,” so birth control methods that don’t impact that (i.e. condoms, some forms of the pill) are fine with him. Others that would keep a fertilized egg from implanting like hormone-based birth control methods, some other forms of the pill, IUDs, RU-486 and what’s known as the morning-after pill, are not supported by him. (Source: E-mail from Buck spokesman Owen Loftus to 9NEWS, Aug. 26)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the latter category included at least 5.2 million women in America between 2006 and 2008 (Source: CDC website)

Tweet
Share

Comments

45 thoughts on “Fact checking the TV fact-checkers: Buck opposes common forms of birth control”

  1. OK, now that we’re alone…

    I think that you’re assessment is a bit over the top for this type of stance.  When you have someone taking a position that Plan B is too extreme after being raped by dad, none of these slight differences matter.  So the answer was just as easy before you did all this work.  Best case you’ve forced logic on an extreme conservative, which never takes anyway.

    That being said; I really enjoyed reading it and thank you for compiling it!  Really.  Thank you.

  2. Would he prosecute women and their doctors for murder if a woman chose to have an abortion and it were illegal in Colorado?  If not, then what is the difference between killing a fertilized egg and killing a 5 year old.  Let him bluster, but make him answer.  Either he says he will prosecute or he says fertilized eggs and 5 year olds are different.  Either way, he’s a dead man.

  3. for one of the best reviews of the biology of how birth control pills and devices work, and why the Personhood people hate them.

    I understand Dr. Santoro (who gave me my oral exams in med school) is endeavoring to remain impartial on the Senate race, but the Colorado Section of the American Congress of OB/GYN (of which she is a member) opposes Amendment 62.

    You can read here how the Personhood movement seeks to end hormonal contraception and IUDs because they believe these methods cause abortion.

    Ken Buck supports amendment 62, so by extension he opposes these birth control methods.  

    1. For some strange reason, or maybe not, I hadn’t visited. Here’s what it says on the matter, in case anyone needs more strange information:

      It [Personhood] will ban chemical abortifacients.

      The abortion industry, with the willing complicity of the main stream media, has redefined the term contraceptive to include poisons and devices that cause the early human being to die. These poisons are called abortifacients because they may cause early abortions. When the abortion industry says that the 2010 Personhood Amendment would outlaw contraceptives, they are either lying now, or they were lying then, for they had always told women that chemical contraceptives did not kill a living embryo. A woman should know whether a chemical would kill her child. The 2010 Personhood Amendment will end the lies.

        2. good god, man.  THINK. REad an elementary school book on civils.

          Congress can vote on a constitutional amendment…2/3s of both houses and 3/4 of the state legislatures would have to all approve such an amendment.

          BUT, CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO OVERRULE A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

          You know there is a party called the American Constitutional Party and you should check with them…Oh wait.

          2. Congress could easily vote to ban abortion. It would be challenged in court immediately, but there’s really no guarantee the court would issue an immediate injunction.

            If there were 51 Ken Bucks in the Senate, I think they’d ban abortion tomorrow in a reconciliation package just to see what the new Supreme Court decides.

            1. It also would overrule Marberry v. Madison, which established the ultimate right of the SCOTUS to review and overrule legislation.  But you are right, could happen.

              Although, I don’t think it would.  Republicans always talk big, but have not voted on even a Human Life Amendment since 1982.  However,  I am not comfortable with your  wild speculation because I think it distorts the real issues.

              Make no mistake, I am voing for Bennet, holding my nose, because I think it critical that the democrats retain control of the Senate precisely so they can confirm appointments to the SCOTUS.

              1. after several attempts by a Republican Congress in the 90s, despite predictions that it would not survive a Court challenge due to the lack of protections for the mother’s health. And the PBA ban survived a Court challenge, and now the mother’s health doesn’t matter.

                The only power the Supreme Court has over Congress is to declare a law null and void. They’re not going to arrest Congresspeople who violate their rulings. There’s no penalty for passing a law that is in clear conflict with a prior ruling, which is why it’s not that rare.

                Congress passes blatantly unconstitutional resolutions all the time; they just don’t get enforced, until the Supreme Court changes its interpretation (as in the PBA ban and as in the Miranda revisitation). Separation of powers is still intact.

                1. You’re right that it did not include a provision for the mother’s health and I believe that Supreme Court had previously overruled a  similar state law. So I called this ruling a surprise, in an earlier post.

                  It is important to note that the reason the Court gave for upholding this law is that other forms of medical procedures exist for late term abortions.

                  The only power the Supreme Court has over Congress is to declare a law null and void. They’re not going to arrest Congresspeople who violate their rulings. There’s no penalty for passing a law that is in clear conflict with a prior ruling, which is why it’s not that rare.

                  Congress passes blatantly unconstitutional resolutions all the time; they just don’t get enforced, until the Supreme Court changes its interpretation (as in the PBA ban and as in the Miranda revisitation).

                  I am not sure what you are getting at here.  As you noted earlier, what happens is that laws are challenged in the federal judiciary and the courts can then review and declare them unconstitutional.  If that happens, the laws cannot be enforced.  The Supreme Court cannot arrest people. The judiciary cannot arrest people.  The Attorney General and his justice department in the Executive Branch can and do arrest people.

                  Congress passes blatantly unconstitutional resolutions all the time;

                  See: sxp 151..a Congressional resolution does not have the force of law.  It is just the opinion of the Congress.  A law is not “blantantly unconstitutional” until or unless a federal court says so.

                  1. My concern is that, since I see politicians at all levels banning abortion in direct opposition to the Supreme Court, just because they want the laws challenged in the Court (thinking they have a better shot now that Alito is there), I think having extreme anti-abortion Republicans in any level of government is going to make abortion worse.

                    Goddamn that was a long sentence.

                    1. However, with this quote, you are gravely mistaken:

                      since I see politicians at all levels banning abortion in direct opposition to the Supreme Court,

                      Abortion has not been banned by an politician.  That cannot happen and is not happening.  

                      Did you mean to say that you hear politicians calling for the banning of abortion?  If so, don’t worrry that has been a campaign call for over 28 years…..and they never vote.

                    3. Here is the quote:

                      For the second time in two consecutive elections, voters rejected an attempt to ban abortion in South Dakota.

                      Here is the link:

                      http://www.sdhealthyfamilies.org/

                      This is why I think the continuing debate over abortion is counterproductive and loaded with misinformation-legal, religious, medical and biological, and historic. …as was the original Roe v. Wade decision.

                      Where do you get your information?  

                    4. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in…

                      The state legislature banned it in 2006, and the governor signed the ban. Then voters overturned the ban via a referendum.

                      What’s hard about this? Why do you think I’m making this up? It just happened four years ago. My point is that state legislatures are actually trying to ban abortion. Outright. In clear contravention of Roe v. Wade. Their stated purpose is to get a court challenge so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned.

                      I don’t see what’s controversial in any of this, or why you’d insinuate that I’m lying when I point out a well-known recent historical fact.

                    6. This is your quote with which I disagreed.

                      since I see politicians at all levels banning abortion in direct opposition to the Supreme Court,

                      A more accurate statement would have been that the South Dakota legislature banned all abortion beginning at conception, allowing abortion only to save the life of the mother.  

                      Then you said:

                      Their stated purpose is to get a court challenge so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned.

                      I don’t disagree with that.  I have stated over and over again, that the Republican strategy is to make abortion a states’ rights’ issue, not a civil rights one.  The goal is to get a test case in front of the SCOTUS so that roe can be overturned…not to ban abortion but to return the issue to the states.

                      I don’t think that Congress will ever vote to outlaw abortion.  I do think that a republican congress would vote to confirm ONLY justices who were very conservative.  

                      I have expressed concern that catholic justices would be subject to the dictates of their church.  

                      I won’t vote for buck because of this concern.  But it is the SCOTUS appointments which concern me not the so-called banning of abortion.

                      I told you we were on the same page.  I just think it very important to be specific.

                      I don’t see “politicians at all levels banning abortion.”

                    7. I don’t know what state legislatures have done.

                      Buck is running for Congress not a state legislature.

        3. Or are you going to parrot H-Man’s talking points?

          The Senate will be taking up the DADT repeal which also contains a reversal of the current prohibition of military servicewomen getting abortions in overseas military hospitals, even if they pay with their own money.

          Are Ken Buck’s views on these issues pertinent for voters?

          1. Where is this legislation exactly?  Is it in committee?

            DISCLAIMER:  I find the abortion issue so convoluted that any discussion, let alone pending legislation in Congress, becomes bogged down in inaccuracies and name calling.

            And, as we saw in the health care debate, position on abortion can be used to block legislation. Debate on the issue becomes divisive.

            However, I also do not understand why the Hyde Amendment is considered constitutional.  With Miranda, a civil right, government funding HAS to be provided; but,  with abortion, an absolute civil right in the first trimester, federal funding can NOT be provided. I don’t understand.

            My personal belief:  Either or both sides should be pursuing a constitutional amendment to clarify the rights once and for all.

            Current Policy:  Hyde Amendment prohibits ALL federal funding for abortion. Therefore, abortion cannot be performed in military hospitals.  

            Problem:  Women in the military may be serving in isolated and/or combat areas and cannot access safe civilian medical facilities to have abortion.  Plus, Germany which is where many military facility hospitals are located, prohibits abortion.

            Proposed Solution: Allow women to have abortion in military hospitals paying for the procedure with their own money.

            Problem:  Even if women are using their own money for the procedure, it is impossible to cost out what the use of the facilities would be.  It is impossible to predict what kind of complications could occur for which military facilities are ill equipped.   It would divert facility resources from serving the wounded.   It would disrupt the “unit cohension” because many medical personnel disagree with abortion and would not choose, if given a choice, to work in a facility which provides abortion.  In the military, they do not have this choice.

            Answer:  I don’t have an answer.  Again, we need a constitutional amendment.  

            Strategy: I don’t think this is a good issue for Democrats or so-called “progressives.”  PRo-choice people, in good conscience could object to the legislation for the reasons I mentioned.  BTB, I read someplace (and I cannot find the citation or link) the military presenting the arguments which I outlined.

            1. DADT is Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the military anti-gay rule.

                As to the Hyde amendment v. Miranda, the distinction is pretty simple.

                You have a right to an abortion, within limits, under Roe — but you don’t have the right to force me, as a taxpayer, to pay for your abortion.

                In the same vein, I have a right to own a gun under the second amendment.  But I don’t have the right to force you, as a taxpayer, to pay for my gun.  (too bad, too.  I’ve been eying this sweet little .357 Magnum.  Oh, well, I’ll stick with my Glock.)

                So why do I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for your lawyer if you are charged with a crime, under Miranda?  (Actually, that particular right is derived from Gideon v. Wainwright.  Miranda WARNINGS only underscore that right under Gideon.)  the reason the state must pay for your lawyer in a criminal case — not a civil case — is simple.ple.  The state is trying to take away your life, liberty or property (that 14th amendment thing again.)  Because the state has created your problem — and is paying the salary of the prosecutor — it also has to pay for your defense, if you’re indigent.  That’s the due process of law provision of the 14th amendment in action.

                Buying a gun or an abortion is a right you can exercise but not a decision forced by state action, so the taxpayer can’t be forced to foot the bill.  I likewise have the right to buy a sports car, but, unfortunately, I can’t bill you for the privilege. (Damn, I really like that Maserati.)

                 

                1. Let me add that, policy wise, I think abortion should be covered by health plans and medicaid.

                  I’m pro choice and — strictly from a fiscal standpoint — I’d much rather pay for an abortion than the cost of bringing the baby to term as well as the probable need for public assistance to Mom and the baby for years to come (since we’re talking about indigent moms to begin with.)

                     But so far, the Hyde Amendment, while stupid, isn’t unconstitutional.  A lot of dumb stuff isn’t unconstitutional, such as the never to be adequately damned designated hitter rule 😉

            2. Current status :

              The Senate Armed Services Committee passed the Burris amendment in a 15-12 vote. The defense authorization bill approved in the House of Representatives does not include the repeal of the ban. If the bill eventually passed by the Senate includes the provision, its fate in the final version would be negotiated in a conference committee of members of both houses.

              Any complication of abortion can be handled in a hospital which handles complications of pregnancy.  Cost out what they charge for a D+C for a miscarriage at a particular gestational age, and add a $50 Hyde surcharge for the equivalent elective termination, so you’re guaranteed to be making money, not subsidizing.  Nothing requires any provider to do abortions, and protections are in place for those with objections to not be forced to participate in that care.  Because of this, what the practical effect of this might be for access is undetermined.

              1. I could see this argument being made as to why catholic hospitals receiving federal funds should permit abortions under this provision.  However,  military hospitals don’t do fee for service or am I wrong?  

                Disclaimer:  I think that whenever abortion is introduced as an issue, that the focus of the original legislation gets lost.

    3. Does this mean the state is going to pay for all the women to have them removed? Isn’t that a violation of of my medical privacy? Isn’t that forcing a medical procedure against the will of the woman?

      Someone should ask Mr. Fiscal Conservative THAT.

  5. for asking for clarification from an easily available source rather than speculating.

    The answer is certainly clear.  He is opposed to birth control pills, IUDs, RU-486 and emergency contraception.  

    Presumably, he isn’t opposed to barrier contraceptive methods like condoms, or to sterilization.  He is probably O.K. with the “rhythm method” as well, at least if your married.

    When the issue is “What does Buck think?,” any approach other than asking someone who can speak on behalf of Buck is bad journalism.  The statement provided by News4 is factually incorrect.  The statement provided by Channel 7 is ambiguous at best and really dodges the important questions.

    In this case, what Buck thinks matters more than the science, because Buck’s opinion, and not “the truth” is what we are trying to discern.

    1. I thought 9News was squishy because its justification for not rendering a true/false verdict on Bennet’s statement (Buck wants to ban common forms of birth control.) was that it depends on what you think is “common.” Well, its own citation pointed to over 5 million women who use forms of birth control that clearly threaten zygotes on a regular basis. And if you add the pill then you’re pushing 20 million or more. So, yes, Buck wants to ban common forms of birth control. That’s true, and that’s what I think 9News should have concluded in this case, with due respect to 9News detail-oriented and thoughtful Truth Test series.

      But you say reporters should just ask Buck, and I agree. But in this case, we know Buck believes life begins at conception, and he’s endorsed the Personhood amendment. So you can draw logical—and useful—conclusions from these positions.

      Given the facts about the pill, for example, how does Buck square his reported support for some forms of the pill with his belief that life begins and conception, and with something he himself says is rare:  a rape by a family member. He says, even though it’s rare, a woman who is raped by a family member should not be given the option of taking the morning after pill. He says it’s immoral. So too should he oppose the use of all forms of the pill, given that, in rare instances, they fail and zygotes could be harmed.

      1. To a fault, really.  He is not necessarily the best informed on birth control, and his premise that life begins at conception for moral and legal purposes isn’t a very sensible premise.  But, consistent with how he understand the facts to be and given the assumptions that he makes, his conclusions are not illogical.

        If you believe what Buck does, and a lot of people do, and yet still think that abortion is O.K. in cases of rape and incest, and that birth control methods that you believe cause the death of a person are O.K., then you are dreadfully illogical, even if you are much more in tune with the prevailing norms of conservative women.

        There are real problems with the “life begins at conception” concept.  

        If a miscarriage is a form of infant death, then the infant mortality rate approaches 35%, and any action that has even slight impacts on the miscarriage rate that a “reasonable person” should have known not to take in the eyes of twelve people you’ve never met becomes negligent homicide.

        Viewing birth control as abortion ends up coming dreadfully close to “every sperm is sacred,” and causes you to see the nation as full of millions of women who are intentional premeditated murderers, despite the fact that these women don’t seem anything like the kind of people we send to death row.

        I’m inclined to think that when an assumption leads to really counter-intuitive conclusions, that my assumption is probably a bad one, at least in areas of morality and law, where, unlike science, you can’t rigorously and objectively determine whether your assumptions are right or wrong.  Lots of really bad policy arguments are logical but based on flawed assumptions.  Ken Buck’s views on abortion and birth control are a case in point.

        The trouble is that Buck isn’t applying for a job as a logic professor in a philosophy department.  He’s applying for a job as a U.S. Senator, where good judgment matters more than the logic by which you arrive at the right conclusion.  And, his stances on these issues show a lack of that, and a deeply deficient capacity to understand the practical implications of his views in the lives of ordinary people.

      2. Let me stress, I understand that Buck is not Catholic, but his position is identical, in all its detail to the official doctrine of the catholic church.  So all the murky details have been discussed endlessly in catholic circles.

        Governor Owens, a catholic, vetoed the legislation requiring all hospitals to offer the Morning AFter pill or information about the Morning After Pill to rape victims.  Owens said he did not want catholic hospitals to participate in the crime of abortion.  I thought that was outrageous.  However, there was little public outcry.  His comment about the “crime” was on the rosen show.

        I fear that this is not a “gotcha question” for Buck.

        Again, I think the question for Buck and his support of the Personhood amendment, is “Would he or would he advise DAs to seek warrants to arrest medical personal in facilities offering abortion, if the amendment passes?”

          1. Colorado bishops provide guidance on personhood ballotJune 14, 2010 – The Colorado bishops affirm the principle that life begins at conception and thus affirm the personhood of the unborn. However, the Colorado bishops decided, last October, not to participate in the 2010 signature collection campaign for the Personhood Amendment. Consistent with their decision not to participate in the 2008 Personhood Ballot Initiative, they have stated that they do not think that this strategy will provide a realistic opportunity for reversing Roe vs. Wade.  

            1. My concern is not the personhood amendment. My concern is that the publicity for Buck’s position will allow/force the bishops to say, as they have in the past, that if there are two candidates running for the same office and one is pro-choice and the other is pro-life, catholics have a moral obligation to vote for the pro-life candidate.

              IMHO, the bishops are better off with repubs because the trial lawyers are in the democratic party and the church is still scared about civil lawsuits about the pedophile coverup.

              The republican party has not endorsed the personhood amendment either.  The repubs and the church, I believe, both want SCOTUS to overturn Roe and allow each state to vote on abortion…..Money, honey, and lots of controversy.  

              1. It’s almost compulsive. Why is that? As a Democrat, why are you so convinced (despite all evidence to the contrary) conservatives aren’t a threat to abortion and Roe?

                We all know the legislative can’t overturn Roe directly, but many people have pointed out how they can and have done it indirectly.

    2. They did not say he is against common forms of “contraception”. They said he is against common forms of birth control. There is a very significant difference.  

  6. You have posted a very informative piece. Thanks for this and all your excellent work.

    I did notice that everyone seems to have forgotten our favorite birth control method from our adolescence…the ever-reliable “coitus interruptus”. I wonder if Buck objects to that procedure…I know I always did.

    Anyway, Pols…is mine the first use of THAT term here? Do I win a prize???Huh..Huh?

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

53 readers online now

Newsletter

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