Facts still matter as Election Day mercifully nears

Maybe it's hard to understand because it's not true?

In a brutal new ad produced by Democratic Assembly Speaker John Oceguera's congressional campaign, victim advocate Karoline Khamis says she can't understand why Dr. Joe Heck would vote to restrict rape victims' access to abortion.

Maybe that's because he didn't vote to restrict rape victims' access to abortion.

Heck did vote yes on H.R. 3, a bill that sought to reinforce an existing prohibition on federal funds from being used for abortion. But H.R. 3 specifically says - in Section 308 - that the prohibitions don't apply to abortion "if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest."

In an attempt to justify the ad, the Oceguera campaign cites the opinion of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, which warned that passage of H.R. 3 might - might - lead to "rape audits," conducted by the IRS, to establish whether a woman who underwent an abortion paid for with federal funds was actually raped.

H.R. 3 does not call for "rape audits." Heck, the Republican incumbent in Nevada's 3rd Congressional District, never advocated for "rape audits." Such audits - presumably conducted after the fact - would not actually restrict a victim's access to the procedure.

But that's what happens when you say something untrue. You have to stretch to justify the outrageous. (That's the label the Las Vegas Sun gave to this ad. Elizabeth Crum, co-host of "The Agenda" on KSNV-TV, Channel 3, called it "one of the most dishonest, despicable ads I have ever seen.")

The rest of the ad falls into the realm of That Which Can Be Argued Either Way.

Khamis accuses Heck of voting against a bill to fund the Rape Crisis Center of Southern Nevada.

And, yes, Heck voted against Senate Bill 579 in the 2007 Legislature.

That was the last Senate bill introduced in 2007 - on the morning of the session's final day, and voted upon that evening - and it included funding for a whole host of projects.

Most lawmakers voted yes, but Heck, then a state senator, and three others voted no. And so one could credibly argue Heck voted against a bill that included funding for the center.

Then again, one could credibly argue he voted no because he thought $200,000 was too much to spend on exhibits for the California Trail Interpretative Center, or that the Advisory Council for Organic Agricultural Projects was spending too much, or that an oral history of the Nevada Legislature just wasn't worth $228,056.

For that matter, you could credibly argue - as Heck has - that he voted against the bill because he didn't like being handed 31 pages of spending in the morning and being asked to vote on it just 13 hours later. That's at least as credible as the argument that he voted no because he didn't want the Rape Crisis Center to get $250,000 to expand its child assault prevention program.

Oceguera's campaign argues Heck has cast other votes that are harmful to women, including votes to take away federal funding for Planned Parenthood. (That organization is prohibited from using federal money to pay for abortions, but federal money is used for myriad other health programs and contraception that helps prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.) And that, unlike the H.R. 3 or SB 579 attacks, is a legitimate point.

The fact is, Heck is pro-life. He's never hidden that fact. And he's voted that way since coming to Congress. For those who disagree and feel strongly about that issue, his record will cost him votes.

But let's make sure we're deciding his race on his actual record, and not on a misrepresentation thereof.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.