One of the more interesting U.S. Senate races in the country right now is in North Dakota, where incumbent Sen. Kent Conrad (D) is retiring, creating an open seat Republicans assumed they'd pick up.
That's proving to be far more difficult than the GOP expected. Former state Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp (D) is proving to be an exceptionally good candidate, and polls show her running even with Republican congressman Rick Berg.
Interviews like these, highlighted by Amanda Terkel, aren't going to help Berg's case (thanks to my colleague Rebekah Dryden for the tip).
For those who can't watch clips online, Berg sat down with Jim Shaw, the news director of the local Fox affiliate, who asked whether the candidate would make any exceptions to a ban on abortion. The lawmaker said he "make an exception for the life of the mother," but not if a woman is impregnated by a rapist. It led to this exchange:
SHAW: What would the appropriate sentence be if abortion was illegal and a woman did have an abortion?
BERG: You know, I'll leave that up to others to come up with that.
SHAW: Should we put her in jail? Should we fine her? Do you have any thoughts on that at all?
BERG: You know, those are things that need to be worked out through, you know, through the legislative process.
Here's the thing: Berg is a member of Congress and a U.S. Senate candidate. If he were to work with other federal lawmaker to end reproductive rights for American women, it would be up to him to come up with criminal penalties for those who broke the law. Shaw's question wasn't hypothetical -- Berg would make it illegal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, even if it was the result of rape. How would he choose to penalize that woman? He'll "leave that up to others to come up with" the specifics, but that doesn't make any sense.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Berg can't leave it up "to others" if he's a U.S. senator; he'll have to vote on what the law would be if he's successful in his own stated goals.
Yes, there would be a "legislative process." The point is, voters should know before the election which policies and principles senators would pursue through that process, and Berg seems oddly unprepared to have the conversation.
Leave a Comment:
Of course...they all start to shudder and shake when you actually ask followup questions such as 'how do you intend on punishing rape victims who get an 'illegal' abortion?'
Because there is no good answer.
Oi.
Follow up question (or response):
Regarding abortion, would you be in favor of any of the following in any cases of abortion under the framework established by Roe vs. Wade when the fetus has less than 50% chase of unassisted survival after natural child birth:
This decision has survived nearly 40 years unmodified because it is the only legal framework that does not permit the violation of the first amendment separation between church and state while simultaneously granting civil rights to the unborn.
The whole "rape debate" is a distraction.
Women have a right to medical care and men should not be involved in those decision.
It should be pretty clear that if you grant 4th Amendment protections from conception that the death penalty would be prescribed* for abortion because it involves pre-meditation. You might defer to a lesser punishment if there was coersion or mental impairment. Death penalty for considered thoughtful in-cold-blood murder though.
The stickier wicket is miscarriages. If a woman gets in a car accident and loses the fetus due to trauma and the accident is her fault, does she face involuntary manslaughter? If she rides in a car with a drunk, is that reckless endangerment?
What if she owns a cat and changes the litter box and picks up toxoplasmosis, what then? What if she contracts it just before getting pregnant?
*"Pro-Lifers" are almost universally Pro-Death Penalty outside Catholicism.
The substance of the remarks is staggering, to be sure.
But can we agree that the background / set is insane?!?!
Are the women of North Dakota allowed to vote? Are parents whose daughters have been raped allowed to vote? Allow exception for 'saving life of mother', but not if they became pregnant by rape! Worse than idiotic.
We'll leave that for the religious court of appointed pastors to decide . If it's good enough for the Taliban it's good enough for me.
See Berg - easy answer , that is what you want isn't it? Christian Sharia law
Someone needs to move his needle, he is stuck. How about this letting the States legislate and take the power of law making away from the Supreme Courts. There is no way we need fifty different state statues on a law that has already been decided upon. At the end of the day this is just ignorance and puppy dog following.
So he wouldn't allow an abortion for the 9 year old girl (who was going to have twins), who was raped by her step-father until her life was in danger?
Roe vs. Wade decided that the mother has a right to pursue medical treatment without restrictions unless the fetus is sufficient mature that it has better than 50% chance of survival.
Up to that point, pregnancy is little different from cancer because about 1 in 5 births go so horribly wrong that the mother will die if the doctor has to worry about murder charges if he saves the mother's life. This includes things like Rh incompatibility that can kill the mother from massive blood clots. This also includes things like ectopic pregnancy that can kill by rupturing abdominal organs.
Roe vs. Wade decided it is illegal for the government to intrude in life-and-death medical decision, so the mother has a right to privacy from illegal government search and seizure involving medical records in accordance with the US constitution.
This removes the all risk of murder charges from women and physicians in situations where the fetus is not considered living in the same sense as a person until the fetus can survive unassisted following natural childbirth.
If the fetus is a person with full rights as a citizen, does it not also have all the responsibilities of a citizen. If the fetus causes the death of the mother, is that not matricide? If the mother can be prosecuted for infanticide for having an abortion. why cannot the fetus be prosecuted for causing the death of the mother? If the mother has an abortion because the pregnancy is going to kill her, why can't she claim self-defense?
And of course if the mother dies because she cannot get an abortion, the fetus will die too. When is the doctor guilty of murder for not performing an abortion which will save a woman's life? If abortion is not legal to save the life of the mother, what we end up with is two dead people instead of one.
All this blather about caring for the unborn is just an attempt to seem compassionate by people who dismiss 47% of the people already born. How is it that a collection of cells is more important than a grown woman?
Ask him what would be a fitting punishment for his own daughter, wife, or sister for terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Would he leave his loved ones to the decisions of strangers wielding moldy old books and mind-sets?
Ladies, we need to make it clear this election, that men have lost the right to dictate over our bodies in this, the United States of Big Men and Little Ladies. Penises garner no intellectual advantage over vaginas, nor do their votes carry any more weight.
And it's thinking like that that has the GOTP girlie men screaming that they want Stepford Wives and girl children. It's also why men are feeling emasculated, they don't want to have to "talk" with their wives, nor do they want women in the work-place!
See, if women stayed home til they got "married" they would have their husbands opinion in all things.....
And in other news.....
Mittens doesn't care about abortion being legal in the United States. If any female in his family wanted an abortion, they'd just fly them in the family jet to a country where they could have the abortion. It's just an issue for the 47%.
ZR, could I possibly persuade you to be a bit more selective in your targeting? At least some of us XY types have been known to converse with women on a level that almost might be considered human, both at work and at home.
Who goes to jail is a question that needs to be answered by Berg and others that are promoting the anti-abortion issue. The abortionist, the abortionists assistants, the pregnant woman, the person who drove the woman to the abortionist, and everyone who knew that the woman was going to have an abortion are all suspects in this situation.
I would make these anti-abortion people answer this and see how the discussion goes after that.
Berg, you joined the mob in the dark of night. The sun is shining on you now. What are you going to do now, big man?
That's Romney's answer to any question he doesn't want to answer. Unless it stops working for him, I suspect we'll be hearing it from a lot of GOP candidates.
What part of the Iranian government is this nut from? He should become an American where the constitution prevents religious mandates from becoming law.
And of course force feed her religion while she is incarcerated.
ooops wrong place.That was meant to go to the below post. (quick, more coffee!)
Ok, let's answer it for them: Yes, they would put the woman in jail.......
And force feed her religion while incarcerated.
that doesn't make any sense.
Does anything any Republican says make sense?
What I want to know is: what is the legal remedy to prevent a woman who might be contemplating abortion from doing so?
I have this image of a facility where large numbers of involuntarily pregnant women are kept and forced to take proper care of themselves for the benefit of their precious cargo: restricted diets, no alcohol, regular mandatory exercise, etc.
Once the child is delivered and perhaps weaned, they might be released. Or, alternately, their studs may be brought in to start another offspring.
As a woman that lived thru the pre-abortion access of 1960's as a young woman. this makes me: SAD, SCARED, SICK and ANGRY!
If they are so concerned about the zygote, transfer it to their gut and let them deal with it!!!
I think in deuteronomy it says the man shall be stoned to death. Perhaps that should also apply to any legislator who votes to force a woman to bear that man's child?
[From the ADL website] - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black best expressed the purpose and function of the Establishment Clause when he said that it rests "on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."
As a devote Christian, I believe this to be true. I look at the right-wing nutcases like Berg, Ryan and Romney (depending on the day) and shutter. These nutcase religious zealots degrade the very core of religion. Non Christians must look at them and their ilk and say, "if that is what Christianity represents, I don't want any part of it." Don't force your religious beliefs on the rest of us. The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
abortion. personal decision. been there. done that.
politically. even i they appointed another or two conservative judge. it doesnt' outlaw abortions. it just sends the decisions to the states. this is such a debate NON-ISSUE. its stupid
Has anyone asked Ryan if he will force the husband of rape victims to raise -- and love -- the child that he would force the woman to bear????????
Neocon tactic #5 don't give them any facts, dissemble.
I am from North Dakota, in complete opposition to this man. This video NEEDS to be seen by North Dakota voters. If I were running the Heidi Heitkamp campaign i would be using this every chance I could get. I do not understand why people are not completely disgusted by that view. I just hope that the people of ND stop voting through name recognition and part affiliation and wake up to smell the roses.
I'm sort of republican, but it's idiots like Berg that make me say WTF.
Perhaps the best question to ask these men would be, "If YOUR daughter or your wife is raped and becomes pregnant, will you force her to have the baby?"