Tuesday, September 4, 2012

THR to the Rescue

The Times Herald Record is trying to rehabilitate Gibson and Hayworth's respective images after the Todd Akin debacle (Akin is back in the lead in Missouri, by the way, and is likely to win in November). As a member of the right-wing press (disguised as a community newspaper; it is owned by Rupert Murdoch) the THR is simply doing its job as a propaganda organ:
Reps. Chris Gibson and Nan Hayworth's views on abortion are more restrictive than current law, but not as restrictive as those of many of their fellow Republicans, or the Republican platform adopted at the convention in Tampa, Fla., which calls for a ban on abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

Gibson, R-Kinderhook, and Hayworth, R-Mount Kisco, both think abortion should be legal — with caveats such as no late-term abortions and no public funding; Gibson also said he thinks it should be legal only in the first trimester.
See? They're sensible centrists. But their "nuanced" beliefs will not be able to withstand the rightward march of the GOP caucus in congress. Will Gibson and Hayworth stand up to their party when they think it's wrong on abortion? Or, more likely, will they simply keep their heads down and do what their caucus wants?

Or, here's another one. Will Gibson and Hayworth caucus with the Democrats? The reason I ask is that the two will certainly vote to retain Boehner as speaker, along with the rest of the GOP leadership in the House. These folks will be the ones controlling the committees, and the committees control the agenda. The only way to be sure that highly restrictive anti-choice bills are defeated is to ensure that they never get out of committee. To do this, you need Democrats in control of the appropriate committees, etc. So, if Gibson and Hayworth aren't going to toe the party line on choice, they need to vote to install Nancy Pelosi as speaker. It's the only way to ensure that more restrictive measures won't reach the president's desk.

But we all know this idea is ludicrous. Gibson and Hayworth will support their party's platform, even if it means they will lose votes in their districts back home. So, as I've explained before, a vote for Gibson, or Hayworth, is a vote in favor of restricting a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. If you're okay with that, go ahead and support them. If, however, you are tired of the right-wing chipping away at this fundamental, constitutionally protected right, then there is no way you can vote for either Gibson or Hayworth.

So, thank you, THR, for reminding is why we should vote against these two -- and why we shouldn't buy your newspaper.

1 comment:

  1. Someone should create a bill that says if a women is forced to have children against her will then she has the sole right to decide what measure to inflict on the sperm donor, such as castration but of course not on the tax payers dime! He gets to pay twice! You want to enforce your beliefs on me? Abortions will continue to happen just not in the presence of a doctor. Get it!