Image 01 Image 03

Wendy Davis accused of “betrayal” on abortion

Wendy Davis accused of “betrayal” on abortion

Harsh reality sinking in for the “base”

The reaction to Wendy Davis’ statement that she could support a ban on late-term abortion if there were more deference given to patients and physicians has caused angst in a Democratic base already upset over Davis’ support of Open Carry laws.

Amanda Marcotte at called it a betrayal (emphasis added):

Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis made her name and kick-started her campaign for governor by filibustering an anti-abortion omnibus bill, standing and talking for 11 hours straight in support of abortion rights. So it comes as a surprise — and frankly, a betrayal — to learn that Davis told the Dallas Morning News on Tuesday that she could support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, if it gave “enough deference between a woman and her doctor” to make the decision to abort after that point for medical reasons….

You may have bought her sneakers, but when it comes down to it, Wendy Davis is a politician.

Irin Carmon at MSNBC writes, Wendy Davis falls into abortion question trap:

This week, Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis delighted her detractors and confounded her pro-choice supporters when she appeared to support the very same 20-week ban she spent 11 hours filibustering…..

It’s far too late for Davis to shy away from abortion rights, including the more politically uncomfortable parts, after confronting them head-on in her filibuster. Regardless of what she was trying to say, a political campaign isn’t a great place for complex or nuanced moral conversations. On the campaign trail, Davis would likely be better off if she stuck to the broader point she made in her filibuster: “The alleged reason for the bill is to enhance patient safety. But what [the provisions] really do is create provisions that treat women as though they are not capable of making their own medical decisions.”

Tata Culp-Ressler at Think Progress (yes, that Think Progress) wrote, Why Wendy Davis’ Position On 20-Week Abortion Bans Doesn’t Make Any Sense:

On Tuesday, Wendy Davis attempted to clarify her position on 20-week abortion bans, one of the policies included in a controversial package of abortion restrictions that passed last summer. The state senator’s dramatic filibuster against that omnibus bill catapulted her into the national spotlight and helped her garner enough support to run for governor. But this week, Davis said she would actually support a 20-week ban under certain conditions.

From a policy position, Davis’ stance simply doesn’t make sense. If the goal is to “give enough deference” to women who are making complicated decisions about their reproductive health, and allow medical professionals to exercise their own judgment about their patients’ care without being hampered by the legislature, that’s directly undermined by the enactment of a ban.

I don’t know if the base is upset with Wendy Davis, or the reality that the Wendy Davis who excited the base with the abortion filibuster cannot win in Texas. Maybe some other Wendy Davis can win, but not the one with pink sneakers.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There’s a writer at ThinkProgress named Tata Cup-Wrestler? NO FREAKIN’ WAY!!!

2nd Ammendment Mother | February 13, 2014 at 1:32 pm

Anyone else think Davis would make a great character on “House of Cards” 3rd season? Just think of all the heartburn she’s creating back at the office for Emily’s List and Cecile Richards’ Planned Parenthood backers. I’m sure the phones are jingling constantly while they explain that Davis is really still on their side, she just has to stay some stuff to calm down all those Texas Yokels.

In the meantime, this is why Abbott made a great decision not to directly use her pro-abortion activities as campaign fodder, thus depriving her the chance to “cave and repent”…. that left OfA’s Battleground Texas needing to find a friendly way to help her change her position and make her more acceptable in rural Texas.

Just a heads up….. we yokels might have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

In the meantime…. Texas Reps cannot back down from opposing Davis, OfA hasn’t invested this much cash to just back off because of a bad candidate.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to 2nd Ammendment Mother. | February 13, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    I saw an article a few days ago that two different individuals had given $1 million each to her campaign. I think that was before she fell in love with the 2A and before she suddenly realized Texans aren’t real thrilled about late term abortions. I wonder if they want their million bucks back?

Selfish, invertebrate and principle-challenged. What’s the problem? Meets the primary requirements of a great modern Democrat… maybe just not a Texas Democrat.

    Democrats are fundamentally corrupt. Republicans are exceptionally corrupt. The real threat is when their interests converge.

    It is morality which keeps honest people honest. It is competing interests which prevent others from running amuck.

NC Mountain Girl | February 13, 2014 at 1:47 pm

The support for Davis based on one incident makes some of the various Tea Parties’ early mistakes in not adequately vetting candidates look mild by comparison. Davis is not just a bad candidate in Texas, she’d be a bad candidate anywhere.

The issue is elective abortion, especially when it is done for money, sex, ego, and convenience. The question that civilized people need to answer is: When and by whose determination does a human life acquire value?

The euphemistic “women’s rights”, “reproductive health”, etc. are exploited in an effort to avoid or submerge addressing this issue on its merits. Every human being should have a personal interest to reject the classification of human life as a commodity, throughout its/our evolution from conception to death.

Elective abortion is premeditated murder. A crime committed against the individual and society. Its normalization is state-sponsored execution of wholly innocent individuals through lethal injection or dismemberment without cause or due process. This is crimes committed against the individual, society, and humanity. It represents an unprecedented violation of human rights.

Make life, not abortion.

    mariner in reply to n.n. | February 13, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    This is crimes committed against the individual, society, and humanity. It represents an unprecedented violation of human rights.

    Yes, and some of the loudest blathering about “human rights” comes from people who won’t support the most basic of all human rights.

      I’m not familiar with your positions. Do you agree or disagree with my assessment? Since the right to life is the most basic human right, I’ll guess that it is the former.

      Brain-dead Canadian woman dies after son’s birth

      But there were two key differences.

      In Muñoz’s case, her husband wanted her taken off a ventilator, and the hospital acknowledged the fetus she carried was not viable. A court ultimately ordered the hospital to disconnect the ventilator.

      In Benson’s situation, family members and doctors agreed to keep her on a ventilator until they could deliver the baby via a cesarean section. And the life inside her was growing normally.

      Their choice to use “viability” implies that it refers to not biological but political viability, which is a standard set with a belief in spontaneous conception used to rationalize arbitrary discrimination.

      The “best and brightest” have a distorted perspective of biology; a poor understanding of technology; and a selective appreciation of morality.

    Phillep Harding in reply to n.n. | February 13, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    Perhaps play up the “sacrifice to Baal” angle?

      It is human sacrifice, but without knowledge of supernatural things, it can only be determined that it’s done for material gains. However, the people who promote and seek to normalize this final solution are doing it, in the best case to reduce the problem set, and in the worst case to reduce their competition.

“Davis for Governor”
If you like your abortion, you can have your abortion. Period.

“You may have bought her sneakers, but …”

Barbie … Gumby … Faustie …

She sold the souls of those sneakers.

Them’s some straight-laced, conservative black Oxford wingtips she’s sportin’ these days, girly-gurl.

2nd Ammendment Mother | February 13, 2014 at 2:57 pm

Bryan Preston @ PJMedia gets the win:
“So the law that Davis opposed, claiming that the decision should be left up to doctors and women and not the legislature, was sponsored by a legislator who is also a doctor and a woman.”

Wendy Davis is the Miley Cyrus of politics.

The more we hear about her campaign, the more I find myself mentally humming a great Jerry Jeff Walker song, but in my mind the lyrics go “Twistin’ In The Wind…”

YOu mean she is simply an opportunist? It’s a shame that nothing in her history would have indicated that before now.
[/sarc off]

[…] tempted to accuse her of caving to lefties who felt “betrayed” that she backtracked on late-term abortion earlier this week (some of them did stand on principle […]

Wendy Davis is ElastiGirl–though not “Incredible”.