Iowa Republican Senate nominee Joni Ernst is a right-wing extremist. And as the Cedar Rapids newspaper The Gazette explains:
Joni Ernst was one of 21 state senators, all but one of them Republican, who proposed Senate Joint Resolution 10 in April 2013. It proposed to change Iowa's Constitution to read “the inalienable right to life of every person at any stage of development shall be recognized and protected.” The amendment did not even come to a vote in the Democratically-controlled Iowa Senate.
Known as a “personhood amendment” it would effectively define life as starting at conception, indirectly making abortion unconstitutional.
The Gazette points out that while this amendment wouldn't
necessarily have meant a complete ban on all abortions, including in cases of rape or incest, because courts sometimes find exceptions to such extreme laws, it was nevertheless dangerous.
Many medical groups oppose personhood amendments because of the side-effects they could cause. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists argues personhood amendments could also be interpreted to make certain forms of hormonal birth control, like the pill or intrauterine devices, unconstitutional, too. Other forms of contraception, like spermicide and condoms, would still be available. The amendment could also make embryonic stem cell research and human cloning research illegal.
In other words, it's possible that courts could find loopholes, but it's also possible that they could interpret the law more broadly, and actually expand its scope. During a Republican primary debate, Ernst was asked who she thinks should be punished should her amendment become law.
“I think the provider should be punished if there were a personhood amendment,” Ernst said.
Join me over the fold to find out how extreme Ernst is on denying reproductive choice.
Congressman Bruce Braley, who is the Democratic nominee in a tight race against Ernst, is running an ad that claims:
“In the state Senate, Ernst sponsored an amendment to outlaw abortion, even in cases of incest or rape. And Ernst's bill would have banned many common forms of birth control. Ernst even wants criminal punishment for doctors who perform an abortion.”
The Gazette rated the ad as "true." But in its perpetual quest for false equivalency, and in the cause of normalizing extremism, the
Washington Post's Fact Checker, run by Glenn Kessler,
says Braley's ad goes too far:
Braley goes too far with his scary scenarios, especially because he repeatedly said the amendment “would” have the impact he described. Ernst is on record of not opposing contraception—though she also favors punishing doctors who perform abortions. We concede that the legal terrain in murky, and the impact uncertain. But that’s all the more reason not to speak with such certainty. Braley thus earns Two Pinocchios.
The legal terrain is uncertain and the impact uncertain, but that all depends on courts and legislatures. But of course, the real question is Ernst's intent. She co-sponsored the amendment, and now she is running for the U.S. Senate.
Kevin Drum nails Kessler by doing what Kessler did not: getting to the real point:
Ed Kilgore is dumbfounded by this kind of treatment, and so am I. I just don't get it. Kessler is not some babe in the woulds. He knows perfectly well exactly what the goal of this amendment is. It's possible, of course, that Democrats in Iowa will prevent Republicans from enacting enabling legislation. Or that the US Supreme Court will stand in the way. But why does that matter when the intent is so clear? Likewise, Ernst may say that "I will always stand with our women on affordable access to contraception," but that's plain and simple weaseling. And it doesn't even matter. Republicans in the legislature can keep their hands completely clean and simply let activists take things to court. With an amendment like that in place, no judge could turn away a suit that asked for a ban on abortions or in-vitro fertilization or certain forms of contraception.
As Kilgore says, "Encouraging this lack of accountability, and engaging in the worst form of false equivalency, is just a sin." All Braley is doing is calling out Ernst for the obvious implications of an amendment she supports. It's not merely a "statement" and she knows it. But in our topsy-turvy world of fact checking, Braley's plain description of the obvious real-world impact of Ernst's amendment is somehow deemed more of a lie than Ernst's slippery prevarications in the first place.
I don't understand this. This isn't a debating society. It's not la-la land. It's the real world, and it's not partisan sniping to say that we all know what this stuff means in the real world. Shouldn't that be the domain of a fact checker?
Only if the fact checker cares about the actual facts. At Hullaballoo,
digby goes to the source, linking to an article that quotes
the bill's sponsor:
Republican Sen. Dennis Guth of Klemme said the resolution he sponsored would make abortion illegal by amending the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception.
"This would send a message to the Supreme Court of Iowa that the people of Iowa want to defend life at all stages," he said.
Iowa state Senate Democrats earlier had defeated an amendment that would have banned Medicaid funded abortions, even in the case of rape, incest or fetal deformity.
Guth said the latest resolution is modeled on North Dakota legislation expected to go to voters in November 2014. It defines life as starting at conception, essentially banning abortion in the state.
As to that
North Dakota amendment:
The measure would have the effect of banning all abortion services, according to the North Dakota Coalition For Privacy in Healthcare, a group opposing the initiative that includes the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition. "Victims of rape and incest could be forced to carry a pregnancy that resulted from sexual violence,” the coalition notes. “Women whose health is at risk could also be prohibited from terminating their pregnancies." The measure could even criminalize miscarriage and ban some forms of birth control. Former North Dakota Democratic lieutenant governor Lloyd Omdahl has said Measure 1 is "driven primarily by theology."
Proponents of the personhood amendment say the ballot initiative would keep existing laws governing abortion from being overturned by courts. Last year, North Dakota enacted two laws restricting abortion in the state. One forbade women from terminating a pregnancy based on sex or genetic defect. The other, which banned abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected—about six weeks after conception—was shot down by a federal court in April.
GOP state Sen. Margaret Sitte, a supporter of the personhood amendment, says Measure 1 is "intended to present a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade," the landmark Supreme Court case that held the constitutional right to privacy included a right to abortion.
That was the model for Guth, and that was what Ernst supported. And Kessler's excuse that we don't know how courts will rule on
the amendment Ernst supported?
Guth said he doesn't believe the Iowa measure would violate the U.S. Constitution.
"I would not necessarily say it's unconstitutional, it just needs to be tried ... we just need to have the right case at the right time," he said.
The question isn't whether the worst effects of the amendment would be shot down by the courts, it's what the amendment's supporters wanted those effects to be. It's what Ernst wanted those effects to be. The amendment's sponsor and the North Dakota measure on which it was modeled are very clear. And that's what Ernst signed on to support. And that's what Kessler apparently doesn't want anyone to notice. He rates political dishonesty on a scale of one to four "Pinocchios." He himself deserves five.
Please help Daily Kos defend against the right-wing War on Women.