Friday, August 24, 2012

Does Gibson Support a Constitutional Amendment Banning Abortion?

A good pro-Schreibman letter to the editor in the Times-Union a couple of days ago. In it, the letter writer asks where Gibson stands in relation to the GOP's extremist agenda on Medicare:
In the editorial "Mr. Romney vs. Mr. Ryan," Aug. 14, on Mitt Romney's selection of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate, the paper stated: "More elaboration from Mr. Romney is required to determine if he'll be running with Mr. Ryan or, at times, from Mr. Ryan."

May I suggest that when the Times Union editorial board meets with the Capital Region's candidates in the coming weeks, that similar hard questions are put to them, especially the incumbents.

Most notably, Republican Rep. Chris Gibson who, in April 2011 voted for the devastating cuts offered by the Ryan budget, which would end Medicare as we currently know it in exchange for a health care voucher system that will leave Medicare patients penniless.
Excellent idea.

But I have another question I want to ask: does Congressman Chris Gibson favor a woman's legally protected, constitutional right to choose whether to terminate a pregancy? If not, what are the limitations Gibson favors? Or, does Gibson side with Romney/Ryan/Akin when it comes to making abortion illegal even in cases of rape or incest?

If you don't believe that the GOP platform includes this language, try this on for size:
With little discussion, the committee on Tuesday adopted the same anti-abortion language it included in GOP platforms in 2004 and 2008. It seeks passage of a constitutional amendment that would extend legal rights to the unborn, essentially banning abortion.

The language in the platform includes no exceptions for rape or incest.
Voting for Gibson means that you are voting for the agenda of the GOP, which wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Of course, such an amendment would never pass, as you would need three-quarters of the state legislatures to ratify it (I wonder if the anti-choice crazies have ever bothered to look this up). There are simply too many blue states for this ever to occur.

But that's hardly the point, is it? Where does Gibson stand on this issue? He's been mealy-mouthed about supporting certain planks in the Tea Party platform, so is be betraying his base, or is he betraying his overwhelmingly pro-choice constituents?

Gibson cannot have it both ways. And it's the job of newspaper editorial boards to ask such questions. Lets see if the Times-Union's board is worth its salt on this one.


  1. Please please stop wasting time on this subject. The law is in place, move on. My body my choice not yours. Focus on reducing costs like medical and insurance fraud. Make medical visits and procedures cost effective. Medical insurance is out of control. This is a major cost for US citizens. People with insurance should be paid a commission when they report errors on their statements from double billing and procedures never received to tests ordered that aren't needed. People look the other way when "its covered" on their plan. They think it doesn't effect them. Long term it effects us all.

  2. Gibson has clearly stated many times he supports a woman's right to choose, as long as it's not a late term abortion and federal funds are not used. That's a moderate position that he got elected on, and his votes reflect that. And yeah, he doesn't support some of the tea party extremist crap. Gibson was elected with 55% in his first run - the majority of those folks were not "tea party".