In a recent interview by Colorado Pols blogger David Thielen, CO Senate candidate Ken Buck reiterates his statement that he does not believe in abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.
Thielen's interview quotes Buck as saying:
Ken then talked about the effort he is involved in to provide a place for pregnant women to stay while they take the baby to term and then keep it or put it up for adoption.
Mr. Buck is running for a seat in the United States Senate, not for President of his church. The interview was about his plans if he is elected to legislate at the highest level in our nation's capitol. Building a home for unwed mothers (if that is what he is referring to here) is a noble endeavor as a past-time or hobby for the average person. But does mentioning it in this interview constitute a policy proposal -- one that would potentially "fix" taking away the right to medical self-determination for just over half of the US population?
Buck says he is not running on the issue of abortion, but can we trust someone who praises tea-partiers for their support -- someone who is not afraid to say such misogynistic things as
people should vote for him because he is "not wearing high heels"?
Imagine for a moment, if you will, if Ken Buck went back on his word to blogger, David Thielen, and chose instead to vote his conscience and follow the teachings of his faith. Imagine pro-choice candidates like Buck elected in 2010. What would happen if legal pregnancy termination was taken off the table as an alternative to women and young girls who have been raped. What would they offer in its place?
Would Buck suggest these women should "slink away to have their babies in shame" the way they did in some earlier generations in our nation's history? Should they go away from their homes to "care for a sick Aunt in another city"?
Would the pregnancy facilities he supports be like homeless shelters, only for pregnant women thrown out of their homes with no income and no one to help them? If that was the case, would they need to become pregnant first to qualify?
Would these pregnancy centers (camps? dormitories? homes? institutions? villages? projects? Take your pick of nouns) house women against their will to make sure they did not terminate their pregnancies?
What about divorced or abandoned mothers who have other children? Who would pay their mortgages, feed their children, send them to school, clothe them, help them with their homework, and raise them, while their mothers would be away at "pregnancy camp", especially if Dad is already a dead-beat?
What about children who are raped or molested by an uncle or cousin or neighbor or stepfather? Would they be forced to leave school, their families, and all they knew to go to these "pregnancy centers?
Who would pay for these "pregnancy facilities" -- the medical bills, the counseling bills, the guardians, the overhead? Would there be tutors available for the underage women who are missing school?
Would Ken Buck support increasing taxes to finance these facilities?
Who would raise all of the babies of twelve and thirteen year old girls who are raped or molested, if their options were taken away? Would Mr. Buck find homes for all of their infants?
Would all of the pregnant females who have their babies in pregnancy centers go home immediately after giving birth? What if there was no home to go back to when they are no longer pregnant?
I invite Mr. Buck to tell us more about these "places for pregnant women" he supports. Colorado voters should listen carefully to his response, and think about what could happen to their wives and daughters and sisters and nieces and mothers, if Mr. Buck and people like him took over the US Senate, potentially voting to take away the rights of women (a full 51% of Americans).
Anti-abortion candidates like Buck must answer tough questions like these if they are to quell our fears, or publicly denounce the desire to challenge Roe vs. Wade. We need to be able to discern if they are simply pandering to the extreme right-wing of their party to energize their base and solicit campaign contributions, or if they are serious about a pro-life agenda. Real lives of real women and other family members are at stake here.
Incidentally, I have not historically been an outspoken champion for abortions. As a stay-at-home mother, I have felt genuinely conflicted on this issue. There was a time in my life I may have even agreed with Mr. Buck. After many years of observing people, however, I've discovered that loving babies sometimes means preventing their birth to people who do not have the resources to care for them adequately.
I look forward to someday becoming a grandmother, but not anytime soon. I've raised my children to be responsible and conscientious. I hope and pray my family will not be faced with such a decision, but as an educated woman and as a voter, in the meantime, I must stay informed.
Voting for any pro-life candidate for the US Senate is simply too risky, even if he is successful in leading us to believe he would never vote his conscience.