Here’s how the media wanted to present Susanna Gibson: as the Democrat hope for taking back Virginia, a health care worker and suburban mother who got into politics when Roe v. Wade was struck down and the issue was returned to the states.

Susanna Gibson remembers where she was and what she was doing on June 24, 2022, the way some remember 9/11 or the Challenger explosion. The nurse practitioner was sitting at her kitchen table in Henrico, Va., going over some patient charts, when her phone buzzed. It was one of her best friends, sharing a link to a news article.

“I saw this text come in, and the feeling of anger and sadness, and just fury but also powerlessness that I felt … I will never forget that,” she said.

The news left Gibson literally floored at first. “I just laid down and looked at the ceiling and it took me probably 10 minutes to get up; I was just so distraught,” she said. “And I remember later that day, walking my dog around and around and around our neighborhood. … Walking around really feeling that sense of hopelessness and helplessness.”

What kind of person thinks that the federal government not licensing abortion is equivalent to 9/11? Well we know the answer.

(Much like Bill Clinton and Lewinsky, this way lies a sewer. You’re welcome not to come along for the trip.)

Pictures of Gibson always show her wearing a stethoscope in some sort of medical garb, but that may have provided an inaccurate impression.

A Democrat running for a crucial seat in Virginia’s House of Delegates performed sex acts with her husband for a live online audience and encouraged viewers to pay them with “tips” for specific requests, according to online videos viewed by The Washington Post.

Life in Virginia is expensive.

More than a dozen videos posted under Gibson’s Chaturbate username were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.

In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through “tokens” purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.

“I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,” she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. “One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.”

What good cause was it? Is that how she was trying to finance her political career?

Gibson is claiming that she’s the victim of a sex crime because… it’s illegal to expose bad behavior by the forces of leftiousness.

In a written statement, Gibson called the exposure of the videos “an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.”

“It won’t intimidate me and it won’t silence me,” she said. “My political opponents and their Republican allies have proven they’re willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family because there’s no line they won’t cross to silence women when they speak up.”

Gibson humiliated himself. This isn’t even a Rep. Katie Hill case. These weren’t private materials, but a public performance. If Gibson’s legal argument holds then the Gary Hart Monkey Business photo would also have been illegal.

Even the Washington Post wasn’t buying this one.

The Post typically does not identify victims of alleged sex crimes to protect their privacy. In this case, Gibson originally live-streamed these sexual acts on a site that was not password-protected and was available to anyone who visited Chaturbate, where she had more than 5,700 followers. Many of the videos remained available to the public on other unrestricted sites as of Saturday. Her campaign did not respond to questions about whether she had ever made efforts to get those taken down.

Asked why Gibson had a reasonable expectation of privacy on Chaturbate, Watkins pointed to a 2021 Virginia Court of Appeals ruling that found it was unlawful for a man to secretly record his girlfriend during a consensual sexual encounter even if he did not show the video to others.

In that case, Ronnie Lee Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, the court found that consent to being seen is not the same as consent to being recorded, writing that there was a “stark distinction between an image existing only in someone’s memory … [and] a permanent file that may be shared or re-viewed indefinitely.”

Gibson was performing in an online venue. It’s not even clear that the recording was done without her permission, and even if it was, it was a public performance. That’s not revenge porn and it’s despicable of Gibson to try and appropriate the real pain suffered by women who had photos or videos circulated as revenge porn. This is a question of venue, not intent.

Anyway, Dems are now stuck with her and more money for a good cause will be needed.

Gibson has outraised Owen $377,000 to $340,000, but Gibson spent nearly $300,000 of her haul battling a fellow Democrat in the June 20 primary. She defeated Bob Shippee by double digits for the nomination but had just $77,000 on hand in the fundraising period that concluded June 30.

Gibson’s two largest donors are the environmental group Clean Virginia Fund ($45,000) and the abortion rights outfit Emily’s List ($20,000).

The argument has always been that politicians are prostitutes. If Gibson wins, the people of her district will at least know what they’re getting.

It’s also the ideal face for the abortion lobby.

What kind of person treats abortion being sent back to the states like 9/11? A Susanna Gibson.