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:
I don't understand why anyone would question Pro-Life politicians on what punishment should be levied against a woman who had an abortion if they changed our laws based upon the premise that life begins when an ova is fertilized. Once that definition of life is established, there is a very simple extension of logic that says a woman who uses birth control (which are effective after the egg has been fertilized) or has an abortion has terminated a human life with pre-meditation and intent. I believe that is called murder and I don't see where there would be any recourse but to prosecute under those guidelines.
Interviewers should lay that our on the table and let the Paul Ryans and Rick Bergs of the world affirm that position or try to explain how that is not the case. And by the way, in the case of an abortion after a rape, it would be far easier to convict the woman for having the abortion than to nail the rapist.
I keep trying to convey the consequences of the 'right to life' philosophy but people just don't seem to get it.
If you believe that life begins at conception then there is no difference between a child of any age and a fetus, embryo, zygote. If the body is simply a vessel for the soul and that soul is the same throughout life there can be no difference what form the vessel takes. With abortion you are killing a human being and to do it willingly is murder. The 'right to life' folk will not say this but it is what they believe which is why they cannot agree to abortion for a woman who has been raped or is pregnant from incest (and we assume rape). Would you after all kill a one year old child if you learned they were conceived from rape? If this woman and/or her doctor who performed the abortion is guilty of murder then they must be executed or sent to jail the same as any other murderer. This by the way is not at all what is said in the Bible. IF you do not agree that a fertilized egg is the same as a 9 month fetus then you are agreeing with Roe vs Wade. They carefully made their ruling based on science and medical expertise. The divisions in their ruling roughly follow the three trimesters of a woman's pregnancy. The first period allows NO laws to hinder a woman's right to have control over her own body and to end a pregnancy as she chooses to do so or not. The second period allows legislation for the protection of the WOMAN's safety. The third period allows legislation for the protection of the woman and the fetus but the woman safety still must come first.
For centuries the Catholic Church followed the philosophy of Plato who said that the soul is immortal and that it enters the body at birth. Before birth the soul is in heaven with God. At death the soul returns to where it came from. The reason for infant baptism is so that the child's soul will go to heaven if it dies shortly after birth, a frequent occurrence even with modern medicine.
The trouble with saying that life begins at conception is that the egg and the sperm are both living cells before conception. If you give legal rights to a fertilized cell, why not for a cancer cell or a blood cell. We spill blood every day. Most higher life forms are colonies of living cells. Many of these cells die and are replaced many times during the life cycle of the life form.
We at DrinkSavvy are attempting to prevent sexual assault, in particular drug-facilitated sexual assault, from occurring by developing color changing cups, straws/stirrers, and glassware that immediately change color when a drug is slipped into your drink. Want to help us in our goal? Check out our campaign http://www.IndieGoGo.com/DrinkSavvy and if you like what we are doing, spread the word by sharing the link with others. Together, we can make drug-facilitated sexual assault a crime of the past.