Dubie Ducks Abortion Rights Question on VPR

Tweet

Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Dubie would not be pinned down on the abortion rights question in yesterday's on-air VPR debate.

When Democrat Peter Shumlin asked him whether he'd sign or veto legislation restricting a woman's right to choose, Dubie, who is staunchly pro-life, ducked the question by saying his campaign is all about jobs.

"I’m not going to answer every hypothetical," Dubie said. "It’s a federal issue. The state of Vermont is not going to overturn federal law. What you’re trying to do is divert Vermonters from the issues.”

Shumlin replied, "I'm not buying it."

The thing is, it's not hypothetical. Legislation requiring parental notification or parental consent for minors to get abortions has apparently been introduced in the Vermont statehouse annually for the last two decades. Governors and legislative leaders supportive of abortion rights have continually stopped these bills in their tracks.

Today, Vermont is one of only 17 states without parental notification and/or parental consent laws on the books.

Would it be different if the governor was pro-life?

Dubie was cagey too when Seven Days asked him the abortion question during an interview for a candidate profile I wrote back in July. But after he was pressed, Dubie gave a clear, if somewhat noncommittal, answer. Here's how it went:

Seven Days: Do you support as policies either a parental notification or parental consent law for Vermont?

Brian Dubie: Well, you know. This comes up from time to time in the legislature. My agenda is to grow jobs. That's my agenda. So really the agenda that I'm putting forward as Vermont's next governor is to grow jobs. Tha's why I'm running for governor.

SD: But if this legislation were to find its way through the legislature, you'd be in the governor's office. You'd be in the position of either signing, vetoing or doing nothing.

Dubie: I'm supportive of involving parents in everything as it relates to their children. I have always been supportive of parental involvement in educational issues, certainly in health issues. I would be generally supportive of that legislation. My agenda is to grow jobs.

Comments

[Lea Terhune]

I listened to the debate and I recall Brian saying I'm pro-life, everybody knows that BUT my agenda is to grow jobs. If growing jobs were as easy as he leads people to believe, it would have been done already, EVERYONE is dedicated to job growth, EVERY candidate has job growth #1 on their list. Who has a track record on job creation? Peter Shumlin. That's how he got rich, by building a company that created good jobs in VT! As for Dubie's anti-CHOICE platform, BEWARE! Men and women, if you value your right to plan your families, be very scared of this wolf in sheep's clothing! Responsible family planning, and a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, are precious freedoms we must never take for granted.

[Jeff]

Dubie is unable to deviate from his pre-approved talking points from his campaign manager! You can tell he's been told "if anyone asks about something like abortion, switch the topic to job growth." If Douglas's policies didn't work from job growth why would we expect anything different from a guy who appears to be incapable of an independent thought? Anyone who heard his debate answer about integrity being answered by his rambling about pulling 7g's in a jet knows this guy is nothing but an empty suit. Or as republican hero GW Bush would say "All hat, no cattle."

[Murphy]

"The thing is, it's not hypothetical. Legislation requiring parental notification or parental consent for minors to get abortions has apparently been introduced in the Vermont statehouse annually for the last two decades."

No, Andy, it IS totally hypothetical. Lots of bills are introduced. Most of them die. Unless you think next year's Legislature will have a conservative Republican majority, in both houses, then you know darn well that any bill that restricts abortion IN ANY WAY will never make it out of the legislature.

Shumlin is using this as a "wedge" issue exactly the same way that Republicans have been accused of using it in the past. If a southern conservative gubernatorial candidate asked his liberal opponent about abortion, that would be attacked as pandering to a wedge issue. What Shumlin is doing is exactly the same thing in reverse.

Shame.

[Emily Peyton]

here is my video response!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6QZWLjk5JI
please watch, Thanks !
Independent Governor Peyton to-be
www.vermontforward.com

[Candy]

'Wolf in sheep's clothing' Lea? Look in the mirror woman. Give up the mic at the NPA once in a while and perhaps people will really speak their mind. Stop pretending to be a democrat.

[one_vermonter]

If the tables were turned -- and a majority of Vermonters were anti-choice -- the only thing out of Brian Dubie's mouth for the next 7 weeks would be "abortion, abortion, abortion."

But Dubie knows that his views are not favored by a majority of Vermonters, so he refuses to answer any questions about abortion rights.

And Shumlin is no different. If a majority of Vermonters were anti-choice, he'd call it a 'wedge issue'.

The political game are transparent. At the end of the day, Vermonters deserve to know where their candidates stand on these issues ... would Dubie veto a healthcare bill funded abortions for poor women? Would Dubie sign a law that required parental notification for minors? These are relevant issues.

[Jason Farrell, Vergennes]

Someone ought to tell both campaigns that Brian mispoke big time with regard to this issue when he said. "It’s a federal issue. The state of Vermont is not going to overturn federal law".

THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW PROTECTING A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE!

[Murphy]

"THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW PROTECTING A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE!"

Wrong, Jason. A Supreme Court decision is law. It's called Roe v. Wade. And it's based on an application of the US Constitution, so it's stronger than any statute Congress could pass. Even with a majority conservative court for the last 20 years or more, the fundamental issue decided by Roe v. Wade has never been challenged.

Scumlin ("Mr. Ethics") is making an issue out of nothing for political purposes. You know, the same guy who knew damn well that Dubie misspoke about targeting the vulnerable, but kept repeating it as if that's what Dubie had meant. The guy is shameless.

[Jason Farrell]

Murph,

We've been lectured by "conservatives" for years about how the judicial branch cannot write law. "Strict Constructionists", remember? Indisputably, in the case of abortion there is, in fact, NO LAW supporting a woman's right to choose. In Roe v. Wade, the Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Since Roe there have been many states that have been legally allowed to impinge on the rights of women to have a safe, legal medical procedure.

Which is exactly why this is and will be an issue in this campaign, no matter how much you and Brian Dubie try to obsfucate the issue with your "settled law" mantra.

Additionally:

1. The Supreme court can overrule it's own rulings.

2. The Constitution can be amended. This would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and ratification by three-quarters of the states (actually, at least 39).

3. Congress can rewrite a law to conform with Constitutional standards, which is the most frequent response to the Supreme Court overturning a law.

While I can understand how you may not know this, I will continue to hold office seekers to a higher standard and I believe that a candidate for the executive office in the great state of Vermont should know these fact.

[murphy]

Jason:

"Which is exactly why this is and will be an issue in this campaign, no matter how much you and Brian Dubie try to obsfucate the issue with your "settled law" mantra."

This is bull____. If you believe that Brian Dubie will EVER have the chance to vote on any abortion-related bill in the state of Vermont, then you are a dope. And I can see from your post above that you are not a dope. Therefore, you are either sophomoric or playing a shameless cynical game of intentionally injecting wedge issues into the gubernatorial campaign that have absolutely no place in it. Why not attack Dubie for his "papist" religion also? That would be just as relevant to the gubernatorial campaign as his views on abortion.

By the way, I am well aware of how the US legal system and the US supreme court work. Moreso than you, apparently. Your three scenarios above are complete non-sequitors.

1. Yes, the Supreme Court can overrule its own rulings, but, as I noted, in almost 40 years, it has never overruled this one -- even with very conservative courts in place during much of that period. Moreover, please explain how electing a pro-choice or anti-choice governor prevents the US Supreme Court from reversing itself? Hint: it doesn't. This is completely irrelevant to the gubernatorial election.

2. Yes, the constitution can be amended. When was the last time the US constititon was amended? And how does the governor of Vermont affect that process? Hint: he doesn't. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the gubernatorial election.

3. If Congress enacts a law restricting abortion, AND the President signs it, AND it then passes constitutional muster, what can the governor of Vermont do about it? Hint: nothing. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the gubernatorial election.

All of your "scary" scenarios are not only highly unlikely, if not impossible, but also have absolutely, positively NOTHING whatsoever to do with the governor of Vermont. Try to focus on the different levels of government in the US (6th grade civics) and identify an actual, plausible scenario in which the governor of Vermont can affect abortion rights. Then we'll talk. Until then, this is nothing more than a cynical wedge issue.

PS, I am pro-choice.

PPS, there is no apostrophe in the word "its" in the sentence, "The Supreme court can overrule it's own rulings."

[Jason Farrell]

I had to go all the way back to April of 2010 to find examples of a governor of a state being in a position to impinge on the rights of women to receive a safe, legal, "constitutionally protected" medical procedure. It happened in Nebraska, Louisianna, and Oklahoma to name a few.
 
Brian Dubie has told the voters of Vermont that he is too busy to address this "wedge issue", while you've attempted to prove that these "scary" scenarios (in your own words) "are not only highly unlikely, if not impossible, but also have absolutely, positively NOTHING whatsoever to do with the governor of Vermont".
 
The people of the state of Vermont have a right to know what a gubernatorial candidate's views are on the issue of a woman's right to choose, but also how they would act if one of these plausible "hypotheticals" were to arise.
 
I agree with you that this is bull____, except the bull____ is the continued obsfucation of this issue by you and Brian Dubie.

[Jimmy]

You're seriously comparing Nebraska, "Louisianna" (sic), and Oklahoma to Vermont? Have you ever actually been to any of those places?

[murphy]

Jase, babes:

Lay off on the ridiculous self-righteousness.

And congratulations for mindlessly sticking to your talking points and completely "ducking" my questions on how the Governor of Vermont can affect: 1) Supreme Court reversals of its own prior decisions; 2) laws passed by Congress; and 3) constitutional amendments. After all, YOU were the one who raised these 3 issues. Now you choose to ignore the obvious fact that the Governor of the state of Vermont has nothing to do with them.

[Jason Farrell]

"You're seriously comparing Nebraska, "Louisianna" (sic), and Oklahoma to Vermont? Have you ever actually been to any of those places?"
 
You're seriously hijacking a thread to make a false claim about what I wrote?
 
The examples I gave; Nebraska, "Louisianna" (sic), and Oklahoma are just the latest to place restrictions on a legal medical procedure for women. At least twenty-two states have bills introduced in 2010 to increase counseling or waiting periods while eighteen states have introduced bills to expand the use of ultrasound during this same period.
 
This year also saw a debate in Congress over abortion coverage through insurance sold in future government-run health marketplaces (exchanges) which nearly derailed passage of the health care law. Even though President Obama issued an executive order stating that no public funds would go for abortions, several states are seeking to ban abortion coverage from plans sold through their exchanges. The creation of these exchanges has the potential to be influenced directly by the next governor of Vermont and provides another reason why it is imperative that we get a straight answer out of the candidates on this issue.

[murphy]

"The creation of these exchanges has the potential to be influenced directly by the next governor of Vermont"

Has the "potential"? To be "influenced by"? Could you possibly be more vague? Explain concretely how Gov. Dubie would do this.

And, by the way, since you correctly pointed out that the President has already ordered that no public funds would be used for abortions under a federal universal health care mandate, please explain how any state action to ban such expenditures is not already a moot point?

I'm pro-choice and the only thing you've convinced me of is either that you're a hysterical single-issue voter, or that you are cynically using this as a wedge issue simply because you prefer the Democrat in this race.

[Jimmy]

"You're seriously hijacking a thread to make a false claim about what I wrote?"

Oh, so you weren't claiming that because the Governors of those states were in a position to exercise their views on abortion this year, that it somehow follows that Dubie could be in a similar position? If not, what was your point?

Who cares how many states had bills introduced? It takes one member of the legislature to introduce a bill. Absolutely, a bill addressing abortion in some manner could be introduced in Vermont. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it would ever make it to the Governor, and unless and until there's a tectonic change in the Vermont legislature, that is never going to happen. Same goes for any weak attempt to claim that similar language might slip through in a revamp of the health care system - the Vermont legislature will never let it happen. You, of course, know this, and the fact that you're trying to attack Dubie on this issue really betrays how weak the Dem case against him is.