Image 01 Image 03

Contortionist: Wendy Davis back to opposing any limits on late-term abortion

Contortionist: Wendy Davis back to opposing any limits on late-term abortion

After being acccused of “betrayal,” Davis once against changes her position.

Erick Erickson called Wendy Davis “Abortion Barbie” because of her cluelessness about the Gosnell shop of horrors at the same time she was fighting a proposed requirement that abortion clinics meet normal surgical center standards and abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hostpitals.

When Davis stepped back from that position the other day and declared that she could support a ban on late-term abortions if there were sufficient “deference” given to the doctor-patient relationship, I suggested the proper analogy was Gumby not Barbie because “infinitely flexible positions now are the hallmark of Wendy Davis’ campaign.”

For that change in position on late term abortion, Davis was accused of “betrayal” by abortion advocates.

Davis, however, has changed her stance again, and now is back to opposing any ban on late-term abortions, because there is no amount of “deference” that could satisfy her, after all.

Via San Antonio Express, Wendy Davis says it would be ‘impossible’ for Legislature to devise appropriate 20-week ban on abortion:

State Sen. Wendy Davis got widespread attention when it was reported this week that she said she could have supported a Texas ban on abortion at 20 weeks if the legislation included enough deference to a woman and her doctor.

It was notable because her filibuster against a measure that included that ban and other tighter abortion restrictions launched her as a national political figure before she began her race for the Democratic nomination for governor.

Davis, however, told the San Antonio Express-News editorial board that she doesn’t think it’s possible for a 20-week ban to give enough deference to the decision-making of a woman and her doctor, and that she wouldn’t advocate for such a ban.

“I’ve been disappointed with how the reporting has characterized my conversation with the Dallas Morning News. What I tried to convey there was that it’s impossible for the Legislature to define artfully enough exceptions that will accommodate everyday situations that women are facing in that arena, and that it has to be left to a woman and her doctor,” Davis said Thursday.

She continued, “I would not advocate for a 20-week ban because I don’t believe that it can capture and respect and give due deference to decision-making that belongs between a woman and her doctor. And typically, of course, these abortions are occurring in tragic situations where women have not discovered that there’s a severe fetal abnormality, or that there is some risk to her own health, until her pregnancy is advanced to that stage.”


Barbie? No.

Gumby? No.

Political Contortionist?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I wonder how she feels about the state involving itself in the doctor-patient relationship when it comes to prescription pain medication. Has she ever heard of the FDA?

    Rational in reply to Anchovy. | February 14, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    Since you are wondering, it seems axiomatic that you don’t know.

    But as long as you are wondering, why don’t you wonder about the Republicans who actually control the power in the state. They don’t give a hoot about the doctor-patient relationship. They support and enforce draconian drug laws and fill the prisons with non-violent drug offenders.

    Yes, Wendy Davis has heard of the FDA.

      Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | February 14, 2014 at 4:17 pm


      What is it about democracy that you hate SOOOOOO much, Irrational?

        Rational in reply to Ragspierre. | February 14, 2014 at 8:17 pm

        You must have skipped reading comprehension in school. What did I write that could be interpreted as hating democracy?

        I get it. Democracy is when the government does what you like. If I disagree with that, I am undemocratic.

          Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | February 14, 2014 at 9:29 pm


          I guess you missed that the people of Texas voted for the people you hate.

          And I guess you missed the part where “draconian” drug laws were passed by Deemocrats in the Texas legislature.

          I guess.

          Rational in reply to Rational. | February 15, 2014 at 12:07 pm


          “I guess you missed that the people of Texas voted for the people you hate”. So I hate democracy because I disagree with who the people of Texas elected? Then you must hate democracy because of who the people of the United States elected. You skipped logic, too? And civics?

          “And I guess you missed the part where “draconian” drug laws were passed by Deemocrats in the Texas legislature.” So Republicans couldn’t have modified the drug laws in the many years since they took power? They have spent an awful lot of time changing abortions laws. They called 2 special sessions! How many special sessions did they call to fix the drug laws?

          The legislature changed from democratic to republican, but the draconian laws remained. So republicans own them. You could learn to be consistent, too.

          Ricky Perry could pardon non-violent drug offenders or commute their sentences. Any examples?

          Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | February 15, 2014 at 2:10 pm

          Yes, you patently DO hate democracy and its outcome in Texas. Because, see, PEOPLE here were the impetus for our laws. That would include abortion, “gay marriage”, and drug laws, among others. All of which you would assert are “wrong”.

          And, yes, I patently DO hate the choices people make when they elect a lying sack of excrement like Pres. ScamWOW. I don’t consider that very “democratic”, since it is the outcome of the work of a pathological liar and his press enablers. Like the passage of ObamaDoggle, it is more ANTI-democratic.

          And you weirdly think that a GOP Texas legislature should reverse the will of the people who militated for laws you call “draconian”. You are simply an idiot with a serious personality disorder. BTW, do Dirty, Filthy Harry and Nanny Pelosi “own” Federal drug laws, you boob?

          Please justify “They don’t give a hoot about the doctor-patient relationship”. Because that is simply an unsupported, stupid, and IRRATIONAL statement as it stands.

      Do you actually LIVE in Texas?

I love it when a candidate impeaches themselves before they are elected to office.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Immolate. | February 14, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Careful, now….

    Barack Obama impeached himself several times over, especially over Benghazi, yet the Low-Information Reflex Voters still reelected him. And like Obama, the Fifth Column Fourth Estate loves themselves some ‘brave’ little Windy [sic] Davis!

      Have you read any of the reports on Benghazi? If not THEN YOU ARE THE ONE WITH LOW INFORMATION.

      Start with
      Then you can move on to:

      No? Then you are the low information voter. Congratulations!

      Besides, what does this have to do with Wendy Davis?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Rational. | February 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm

        Get back, everyone! He’s using ALL CAPS! He’s serious!

        nothing in those reports negates these FACTS:

        Hillary was derelict in her duties as Sec State, she ignored many signs of danger

        ANY person, even a mental retard, would know to have your guard up in that place on that day

        Barry was AWOL thru the whole event. Hillary’s 3am campaign ad was prescient; yet more evidence the Little Boy Barry is still, after five years on the job, simply unqualified and unable to do the job

        Military assets were available yet not deployed. For the first time in the history of this country, men were left to ‘die on the vine’

        So what will it be proggie drone? Ad hominem? Red Herring? Straw Man? What do you have from your OFA bag of drone talking points?

She’s a piece of work. I’m sure her allies now wish they had an alternative, because even for their purposes, she’s utterly untrustworthy.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | February 14, 2014 at 1:18 pm

At this point shouldn’t she forever more be referred to as “Peter Pan?” (Peter Pan = mischievous child who never grows up.) Peter Pan after the “Peter Pan Complex” that Wendy Davis clearly is afflicted with?

“Peter Pan Complex = avoids responsibilities, people tell them they are childish and need to grow up, would rather live in their head than the real world, wants success to just happen to them, focuses on fantasies more than reality, believes they deserve to have whatever they want, life lacks direction, never know what to do next, does dumb things frequently, inconsistent performance, lazy, slacker, does the minimum to get by, does things without thinking, does not feel they have any reason to accomplish anything, tend to ignore or put off problems, believes fun is the most important thing in life, most people think they are crazy, forgets scheduled appointments, more past than future, gets attention through negative behavior.”

Of course that describes President Obama to a Tea also.

    From Peter Pan to Bed Pan in one political season.

    The fact is that she stood up and did something that appealed to that “feelings over reality” side of Lefties, and they anointed her as the next Teh Chosen Won, albeit without the Y-chromosome. Thus, anointed, she is now clearly bereft of the sheer acting ability and chutzpah required to lie, obfuscate, insinuate and pontificate (all DNC core requirements) her way to electoral victory.

    Now, the Soros Machine, the Adoring Media and Usual Suspects will have to swing into high gear to save Texas for the dash-Ds. Look for WJ Clinton, et al to show up here to prop up this idiot with anything but substance. And who know, ol’ Bubba might get lucky, unless Hillary keeps his little blue pills in her lockbox. 😆

100% political wind sock, morally hollow and intellectually diaphanous.

They are obsessed with sex, money, ego, and convenience. That can’t be a healthy disposition. It’s also one thing to suffer personal corruption, but to promote it as normal is just evil.

    Rational in reply to n.n. | February 14, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    Hey don’t you understand the ideology of this site? Why are you attacking religious conservatives?

      David R. Graham in reply to Rational. | February 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm

      Hey, Rational, you have not received a lot of food in this posts’s comments. I feel sorie for you. Here: you have an appallink method of eatting asparaagus and your knowlege of ideologyes comes from scraps of taking points drugged through trailer parcs. Feel betterish? I hope so. And, please, report me to your massaters. You knoo, the ones who pay you by the cluck. Bon chance! Sorry, I wis bord. Logos.

        People are reading them. That is good enough for me. I don’t have any magic elixir to remove your prejudices.

        I do see a lot of comments on liberty on this board. But liberty seems to be limited to those who agree with conservative ideology.

    Rational in reply to n.n. | February 14, 2014 at 8:34 pm

    Religious conservatives are not obsessed with sex? Then why do they oppose birth control? Why are they opposed to sex education?

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Rational. | February 14, 2014 at 10:07 pm

      Well silly, because we’re afraid sex might lead to dancing.

      Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | February 14, 2014 at 10:30 pm

      You pathetic liar.

      Conservatives don’t “oppose birth control”. They oppose your Collective trying to make people pay for what others use.

      Nobody I know “opposes sex education”. We all oppose sex promotion to adolescents. We all oppose the lie that condoms are a fail-safe, you stupid, lying POS.

        Rational in reply to Ragspierre. | February 15, 2014 at 1:14 pm

        I am opposed to collectively being forced to pay for fat people with heart problems. Why don’t they exercise and diet?

        What is the difference? Contraception is just another health service that allows women to control their reproduction. It saves money. So you aren’t paying for anything.

        Agreed, condoms are not perfect. So teach that they are very good at protecting from disease and unplanned births, but that is no reason to engage in promiscuous behavior. Are you willing to teach that or does it have to be abstinence only? What about teaching sex education to prepare for marriage?

        We both know what this is really about. You want the state to establish your religion.

          Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | February 15, 2014 at 1:52 pm

          Except, liar, I have no religion.

          What a crock of amazing illogic!

          You start from the Collectivist premise that YOU are paying for other people’s “vices”, hence you are entitled to dictate their conduct. As noted elsewhere, that old totalitarian, authoritarian urge.

          Then you move to the laughable falsehood that birth-control is somehow a “women’s health issue”. It isn’t. It is, again, a matter of choice, and a very affordable choice it is, too. I CAN be, individually, something that a woman might need for her health, just as you might need anti-psychotics. Neither you nor she has a right to take funds from others at the point of a gun to get what you might need. Appeal to me for help with your anti-psychotics, and I might very well contribute.

          Oh, so you support getting the government completely out of health care then? Great!

          You proggie drones think it is the government’s place to educate children about such things? The world scares you, doesn’t it? You think big daddy gubmint is gonna coddle you and make everything ok. People like you are pathetic and should really just move to France or just go full-on commie and go on to Russia or China. Stop ruining this country.

      Cheesecakecrush in reply to Rational. | February 15, 2014 at 6:38 am

      Its funny watching you slap at the conservative caricature that your leaders gave you to flail away at while maintaining your D vote.

      We could explain to you our positions but you wont listen to our explanations because that would be “rational.”

      So, I’ll just ask you this: If Republicans are having a “War on Women” then who was covering/defending Bill Clintons numerous sexual harassment/rape victims?

        You picked up on the latest talking point on Clinton. Congratulations! If you want to have a pissing contest based on hypocrisy, I could oblige. But there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides. Hypocrisy doesn’t invalidate an idea. Christians are advised to turn the other cheek. They seem to fail at that quite often.

        It is impossible to be subtle in this amount of space. So maybe you think I am limited to caricatures or talking points. Maybe you believe that because it makes you feel better. Maybe you are deliberately misunderstanding me so that you can dismiss me. Good ahead. All I am doing is entering a discordant note in a forum that seems to be about reinforcing an ideology.

          Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | February 15, 2014 at 2:44 pm

          No, liar. You are trolling. And then lying about it.

          We also all note you cannot answer a question, and you cannot honestly deal with issues.

          Plus, you don’t know what hypocrisy is.

Next she will become a massless photon constantly moving at the speed of light and no one will be able to pin her down on any issue.

Actually, though, she had to get a new iThingy so that she could find out again what she thinks.

Wendy Davis is in competition with ObamaCare for the political maneuvering prize.

Davis is toast – if the GOP doesn’t run a mushy don’t-frighten-the-horses campaign against her in the fall. Hammer her on Obamacare, jobs, taxes, and her flip-flops on gun control and abortion.

How long before people start calling her “Bendy” Davis? (Like the name of the mannequin in the “loud Music” case.)

Wendy became a celebrity to the nutbar feminists. If not for them and their fanatical abortionista stance, she would just be another irrelevant footnote in the state legislature.

With their attention, she became a sideshow attraction. Only idiots ever thought for a second she was a viable statewide candidate in Texas. But the feminists aren’t known for their brains, but for their unending supply of bile.

So enjoy the show. That’s all Wendy is, all she’s ever been, and all she will ever be.

2nd Ammendment Mother | February 14, 2014 at 5:01 pm

2nd Amendment Mother
I’m starting to believe that the public Davis campaign circus is actually a distraction – look here, not here. None of her contortions are leading the evening news in the Texas media beyond a one off here or there. The Tribune (backed by Soros) has set up contracts for their pro-Wendy articles to appear in the local papers around the State.

The real game is what’s going on with OfA’s Battleground Texas.

“Battleground Texas, started by former Obama operatives who want to turn the state away from its Republican devotions, is trying to register new voters, identify Democrats and turn them out for this year’s elections.
So they are looking for first-timers, people who haven’t voted before because they just moved here or just recently came of age or haven’t been involved in elections before and are just waiting for someone to ask them.

And there is the other group, the 2.2 million Texans who turned out in March 2008 and haven’t been seen in a primary location since then. The Democrats already have their names, if not their votes.”

Shelia Jackson has already tipped us off that OfA has a databasing capability to reach potential voters using highly personalized direct phone calls. Since this kind of campaigning is so individualized and outside the view of the public, there isn’t much accountability or rebuttal tactics available. Toss in the Obamaphone factor and you’ve got a set population that is pre-disposed entitlement voters for Dem and straight ticket Dem races.

She’s back to her true colors. The Dem non-negotiables are abortion and sodomy: no restrictions, no apology, no dissent.