It was interesting that in responding to Titus’s claim that he is a flip-flopper, Congressman Jim Gibbons gave an excellent example from his Jello-like record: his stance on abortion. During the debate, if memory serves, Gibbons said he only thinks abortion is acceptable in the case of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.
Well, back in 1991, Gibbons had a different perspective on the abortion issue. In 1991 there was some talk of Gibbons running against Harry Reid for the United States Senate. No, I don’t mean 2004. I mean 1991. Gibbons was trying to decide whether to run for a third time for the State Assembly after getting back from the Gulf War. According to a story by Jane Anne Morrison in the July 1st, 1991 edition of the Review Journal, the match-up between Gibbons and Reid, which never happened in any millennium, would have pitted “a Republican who believes in a woman’s right to an abortion and a Democrat who does not.” Gibbons being the Republican and Reid the Democrat in this case.
However, Gibbons had the following to say about his view:
Gibbons said he was “pro-choice” and defined that as believing that the government does not need to interfere with the private lives of individuals. “It’s so personal, the state ought not to be involved.”
The 2006-model Gibbons has changed his views a might, it seems. He must have given up that idea that government shouldn’t interfere in the private lives of individuals.
And then there’s the 2005-model Gibbons who had the following to say in that plagiarized rant he gave in Elko:
Gibbons brought the crowd to near feverish pitch when he hit the hot button issue of abortion.
“I want to know how these very people who are against war because of loss of life can possibly be the same people who are for abortion?” Gibbons said. “They are the same people who are for animal rights, but they are not for the rights of the unborn.”
Of course, those aren’t Gibbons words, despite the fact they dribbled out of his mouth. They’re only borrowed-like, you see. So, it’s hard to decide if he’s saying that the unborn have rights which are equal to or perhaps take precedence over what the 1991-model Gibbons called the “so personal” decision of the mother.
Anyways, any model Gibbons is a lemon.
Now I looked up that Morrison story in the Proquest Database, which isn’t free. However, you can probably get access through the Clark County Library (and probably other libraries, too, especially community college or university libraries) if you are a card carrying member of one of those fine organizations…info here. If you can get access, the story is in Proquest here. And you can probably kiss things like free database access via libraries good-bye if Gibbons ever gets a chance to write that state budget. Good thing he won’t.