Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Wendy Davis: I had two abortions

Wendy Davis: I had two abortions

The September Surprise – Why reveal it now?

Well, this is interesting.

I knew Wendy Davis was selling her new book while campaigning — usually that’s done before or after the campaign — but we now know why.

Davis’ book reveals she had two abortions, something sure to shake up the race at a time when taking risks is worth it for her since otherwise she’s going to lose.

Via AP:

Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis reveals in a new campaign memoir that she terminated two pregnancies for medical reasons in the 1990s, including one where the fetus had developed a severe brain abnormality.

Davis writes in “Forgetting to be Afraid” that she had an abortion in 1996 after an exam revealed that the brain of the fetus had developed in complete separation on the right and left sides. She also describes ending an earlier ectopic pregnancy, in which an embryo implants outside the uterus.

Davis disclosed the terminated pregnancies for the first time since her nearly 13-hour filibuster last year over a tough new Texas abortion law.

Both pregnancies happened before Davis, a state senator from Fort Worth, began her political career and after she was already a mother to two young girls.

She writes that the ectopic pregnancy happened in 1994 during her first trimester. Terminating the pregnancy was considered medically necessary. Such pregnancies generally aren’t considered viable, meaning the fetus can’t survive, and the mother’s life could be in danger. But Davis wrote that in Texas, it’s “technically considered an abortion, and doctors have to report it as such.”

Davis said she and her former husband, Jeff, wound up expecting another child in 1996 after they decided to stop taking birth-control measures. During her second trimester, Davis said she took a blood test that could determine chromosomal or neural defects, which doctors first told her didn’t warrant concern. After a later exam revealed the brain defect, Davis said she sought out opinions from multiple doctors, who told her the baby would be deaf, blind and in a permanent vegetative state if she survived delivery.

“I could feel her little body tremble violently, as if someone were applying an electric shock to her, and I knew then what I needed to do,” Davis writes. “She was suffering.”

Note that in both instances the abortions are set up as medical necessities, framing the issue just the way Davis wants. I don’t think most people think of terminating an ectopic pregnancy as abortion, so it might be more fair to say she had one abortion, although she counts them as two.

So why didn’t she reveal them earlier if they were medically necessary?

Instant hero status with liberals:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

My my my… How convenient.

    Another Voice in reply to joethefatman. | September 6, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Just when Davis believing she is being marginalized, she makes a “Lindsay Lohan” play to get back in the headlines. Her own personal race for the bottom feeders.

“Note that in both instances the abortions are set up as medical necessities, framing the issue just the way Davis wants.”

Yah, I’m betting thats not what really happened. Its all been airbrushed and poll-tested to present the best narrative.

But why do people think its “brave” of her to tell this story? Are we back in the 1960s?

    Isn’t the rationale for her entire campaign the “fact” that we never left the 1960’s when it comes to the freedom to have an abortion?

9thDistrictNeighbor | September 5, 2014 at 11:45 pm

I call BS. I really don’t think this tidbit would sway anyone. If it’s designed as a get out the vote, it’s too early. If it’s for fundraising purposes, it’s too late. We know she’s Abortion Barbie; this confirms it.

Humphrey's Executor | September 5, 2014 at 11:49 pm

Would either of the procedures she went through have been prohibited under the law she opposed?

The ending of an ectopic pregnancy is not normally considered to be an abortion per se. Such a pregnancy can end up being a medical emergency. I doubt that even Texas Law would describe it in terms of a “procured miscarriage”.

If the other situation really happened, then it is 6 of 1, and half a dozen of the other. Other than via a scan I doubt that a blood test could have determined such an abnormality…. PLUS…. I know that an interpretation of a scan can give false data. It happened to a niece of mine.. the baby was fine even though she was told it had a brain abnormality and there was pressure to get an abortion.

If Davis is telling the truth, then I do not think much of her reasoning in regard to the second alleged pregnancy. She does not know if the child would be suffering. Her claim is nothing more than a big load of mushroom fodder.

So what happens when amniocentesis can detect the Autism gene, the Muscular Dystrophy gene, the Cystic Fibrosis gene, the Learning Disability gene, the Club Foot gene? Abort them all? They have no shame. I can’t believe that I live in a country where Americans scurry to support a woman that advocates killing babies. But, that’s just me.

I question the timing.

/sarcasm

Of course it’s a Hail Mary pass on 4th down on her own 5 yard line, down 9 with six seconds left in the game. It may or may not be strictly true – I’ve learned to treat the claims of all Democrats as if they were internet rumors at best. Too many repeated cries of “Wolf!” from them over the years.

But even so, anyone moved to support her by this story was likely already a supporter, right? Maybe it will motivate some of them to vote who might not have otherwise, but I don’t see it as a game-changer at all.

If true, I really feel bad for her. But, innocent life is an absolute value we must protect absolutely. It cannot be subject to another individual’s moral relativism, otherwise people can licitly condemn others to death subject to community-agreed fiat (in this case, abortion).

I don’t know the science in the ectopic pregnancy. But if the intent is to save the life of mother, and nothing can be done to save both mother and child, and actions done to further this end are not directed toward the harm of the child, then the fetus (a child with a human soul) can be morally licitly removed if all reasonable attempts are made (however likely to be fruitless) to save the child through incubation, artificial breathing, etc. Principle of double effect. This might be a medical abortion, but it might not be a moral abortion as understood by the Catholic Christian faith which requires the direct intent to kill the child, as either a means or end.

    Lady Penguin in reply to filiusdextris. | September 6, 2014 at 3:25 am

    Ectopic pregnancy is incompatible with life. It is considered a medical emergency and not the “abortion” procedure she is proclaiming. The egg essentially becomes implanted in the fallopian tube (on its way down to the uterus where it has to implant to get life support – getting nutrients/exchanging waste products from the vast vascular system of the mother’s uterus. The fallopian tubes cannot sustain fetal development and the fatal risk to the mother (100%) is of the tube erupting once critical mass is reached.

    Pro-abortionists like Davis and her ilk consistently like to portray medical necessity procedures ie, saving the life of the mother, as “abortions” they couldn’t get without legalization – that’s not true and has never been true. Long before Roe v Wade, ectopic pregnancies were medically dealt with as a clear emergency surgery due to the imminent risk to the mother.

I expect to see many comments on this one expressing skepticism at this new story. And rightfully so. Davis blew all credibility when the truth came out about her abandoning her husband and daughters.

So her so carefully described ‘I had to have these abortions’ are designed to secure more sympathy votes for her in November. It’s interesting to note how she frames her stories in terms of medical necessity vs the everyday, unfettered use of abortion as birth control which has become the norm in our society.

Someone should demand a release of her medical records because I suspect the truth is different from what Ms. Davis is emoting.

shame on Davis, ONLY two

Sheer desperation. Major eye-rolling. No one is paying attention to Abortion Barbie.

Wendy Davis had two abortions and lived without the burden of those children (the ectopic notwithstanding). A tree fell on Greg Abbott, and he’s lived with the burden of leading a normal life ever since. Who’s the hero?

I’ve said it before. It’s Jello Desperation Syndrome.

She has no merits as a candidate. They CAN’T wait any longer. They’re throwing everything they have at the wall and praying something sticks to it.

If abortion is “a private decision made between a woman and her doctor” (as pro-abortion folks constantly assure us), then why is she broadcasting it?

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 6, 2014 at 9:18 am

For a normal person her experiences would be a terrible burden to bear. So terrible that they’d want to keep the experience private and share it only with their clergy, close family and intimate friends. She is using this emotionally charged experience to re-nationalize and re-invigorate her campaign. If Texas wants a sociopath for governor, they know who to vote for.

It’s also bait for staunch pro-life Republicans to hang themselves. While Davis has chosen to make it a political issue, the only comments any Republican or pro-lifer should make are to offer condolences and prayers to Davis and her family for having to go through such a traumatic experience. Then shut up. Say no more than that.

The ectopic pregnancy was not an “abortion” as the current debate defines it. It is medically necessary since the baby cannot be saved and if the pregnancy continues the mother will also die. So she had one elective abortion, of the baby who was said to be deformed. As others have said above, prenatal diagnoses can be wrong. In addition, it’s not a “medical necessity.” Her pregnancy could most likely have continued normally. Very often delivery in the ordinary way is safer than what the woman goes through to deliver early via abortion.

Fewer than 5% of abortions are done for reasons like the one claimed for Davis’s abortion, the severely deformed child, so her experiences don’t speak to the elective abortions on which she staked her political career.

IF you want to VALIDATE the leftists “war on women” meme, then comment on her “abortions”. The best thing to say is NO COMMENT!

With the degenerate “pro-choice” doctrine, Democrats commit yet another unforced violation of human and civil rights.

Human life evolves from conception to natural, accidental, or premeditated death. Abortion is premeditated murder. In a civilized society, the commission of murder is only acceptable in self-defense. In a libertine society, women have been granted an extra-legal and moral “right” to commit premeditated murder for what is essentially pleasure (e.g. money, sex, ego, convenience, and “equalization”).

How do people reconcile the pro-choice paradox?

It’s ironic that men and women who profess faith in an “evolutionary theory”, are the most likely to reject evolutionary principles (which are observable and reproducible in an inter and intra-generational chaotic process), and the most fundamental human right: the right to life.

I realize that most religious bigots absolutely, positively MUST try to force their religious superstition on everybody. Right now, except for the illegal “administrative decisions” of Obama, we are still a nation of laws. So if you THINK that “abortion is murder”, all you have to do is get Congress to pass a LAW by 2/3rds declaring “abortion is murder” and get 3/4ths of the states to agree. Until then, you are SOL.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 6, 2014 at 9:13 pm

    And what about those of us who do not approach the question of the life of another human being except by reason, you bigoted phuc?

    Abortion will never be completely outlawed, but it will become an issue where all human beings are granted protection under law, and the law will weigh the interests of each. And there will be no “extra-constitutional” humans.

Well azzhole, “humans” ARE “granted protection under law”. ONCE you are a “human”. Until you are born, the English BIBLE says you are NOT a “human”. Current law does not grant the “unborn” human status until they are “viable”. Like I said, all you have to do to enforce your RELIGIOUS SUPERSTITION on everybody is to get 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states to “adopt” (adopt, get it, like the anti-abortion types are always saying about unwanted pregs, “just adopt out your babeee”.) your vision.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 6, 2014 at 11:13 pm

    Why are you reciting an authority you don’t believe, you lying SOS? I have no “RELIGIOUS SUPERSTITION”. You can scream and shriek all you want. My position is the only one supported by reason, and by science.

    Once, “current law” was the precedent in Dred Scot, you poor, stupid bigot.

    No amendment to the Constitution is needed, moron. Roe was all it took to “find” a new, terrible “right” to kill another. Roe can be killed with the same process it was spawned by.

    Idiot.

“Until you are born, the English BIBLE says you are NOT a “human”.”

Huh?????????????????????????????????????

“You knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret” (Psalm 139:13,15).

“You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God” (Psalm 22:10-11).

“God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace” (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15).

The same word is used for the child before and after birth (Brephos, that is, “infant,” is used in Luke 1:41 and Luke 18:15.)

(Source: Priests for Life)

Until a “baby” is viable, it is just a PARASITE to the mother. Sorry your RELIGIOUS SUPERSTITION somehow gives more “power” to a few cells over the LIFE of the mother. But most bible thumpers “believe” in the “holy” English King’s version of old wives tales.

And do you “believe” that there are ONLY 8 “RIGHTS”? That is all that are enumerated in the “Bill of Rights”. And since the Supreme Court “found” a RIGHT in Roe v Wade, the RIGHT EXISTS. You may “want” to overturn that RIGHT by legislation, but that isn’t happening. Get someone to explain the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments to you. Then get all your snake handling bible thumpers together and TRY to pass a Constitutional amendment to END THE RIGHT of women to CHOSE.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 7, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Wow. You really have lot of emotion behind this whole abortion thing, huh? Kind of…odd…

    Most of it is obviously HATE. You can’t afford people with religious beliefs ANY respect, huh? Makes one wonder…

    Also, I note with some contempt your resorts to authority for your positions. Can’t come up with anything on your own, I see. Pitiful.

    Does a terribly BAD ruling by any court make a “right”? Are you THAT cowed by a court? Or do you just elect to be cowed here?

    Affording another human being their status would not grant them “POWWWWAH” over another, would it, moron? Is that what happened when Dred Scot was obviated?

    See, you are just too stupid to do this. And you are simply wrong. Human beings are…rationally…human beings. And it does not matter what a court, or you, or the majority of all the world say. What is simply is, and the more you fight what is rational, the more you yourself die. As a human being, I mean.

    Ya moron.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 7, 2014 at 4:40 pm

    ***Until a “baby” is viable, it is just a PARASITE to the mother.***

    Geebus, you really are a twisted phuc, huh? You were a “parasite” until the day you were born, you moron.

    THEN you were STILL a “parasite” for years afterward by many definitions. By yourself, you were totally “non-viable”, weren’t you, stupid?

    Were you a “baby” (in stupid scare quotes)? I bet you were.

    I really wonder at what’s at the root of this pathological thing you have with humanity. You’d be fun to examine.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 7, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    As respects the 10th Amendment…

    is Roe LESS consonant with the 10th, or MORE consonant?

    Did it NOT Federalize what had been an issue uniquely belonging to the states?

    Why, yes! I do believe it DID…!!!

    (See, I could bat you around all day and into the night here, because you are irrational…and stupid. Oh, and a bigot!)

Unlike a lot of conservatives, I am willing to accept a right of privacy found in the several amendments (and Incorporated to the states). I might even be able to extract a “right” to abortion on an intellectual level from same (but liberal courts have shown themselves completely irresponsible with rights interpretations). But like all other forms of murder, your right completely ends where another’s right begins. These pre-born humans have as much right to their Constitutional guarantee of life as any American, especially when you read natural law into the guarantee as I do (and the Founders would have done). Just because the Supreme Court utterly ignored the life question, doesn’t mean it’s not important to the legal analysis.

For political compromise, I would be willing to accept denial of the rights of the unborn in exchange for a federalism approach where each state decides what is “life” under the Constitution.

Religion supports my position, of course, but I would hold the exact same were I an atheist, as have several pro-life atheists I’ve met.

    Ragspierre in reply to filiusdextris. | September 7, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    I don’t think you can call an abortion “murder”, as that has a meaning and it just doesn’t fit.

    It is, without question, a homicide.

    There is a “right to privacy” hinted at in the Constitution. One cannot leap the rational chasm between having a right to privacy, and having a unilateral “right” to kill another human being you’ve done everything you could to bring into being. Legal thinkers WAY above my pay-grade, and on all sides of the issue, have execrated the Roe decision, as you can easily find IF you have any intellectual integrity (by “you” I mean “anyone”).

    Being the father of several daughters, I would never want them deprived of “choice”. They were all taught they had a whole stream of choices BEFORE becoming pregnant. Once they invited that new human life into being BY THEIR CHOICESSSSSS, they really only had one rational, moral choice unless bearing the child to term would hazard their own life or permanently and profoundly damage their health.

You are obviously EQUAL in “intelligence” to a 1 cell “human being”. That IS your threshold for “life”, right? And this “rational” comes from, where? Reason? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Yah, you derive some “power” to determine, for someone else, when “life” begins. And you want the power of the STATE to enforce your superstition. Religious or just bigoted. And what BUSINESS is it of yours, anyway? You are a “conservative”? Or just a BUSYBODY that wants the power of GOVERNMENT to enforce your own cultural and religious mores and superstitions? Well, “Christian brotherhood” member, it’s none of your business what someone else does with their privates. Male, female or “other”. Get over yourself. That is, of course, unless and until you can change the CONSTITUTION. I know you think it means what YOU want it to mean, but, being a nation of LAWS NOT MEN, you will continue LOSING!

    Ragspierre in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 7, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Well, yes. It comes from both reason and science. Few things are more self-evident than the proposition that a human being is a human being. They are never a “parasite”, but a member of the same race, who, given only ONE thing is equipped to be recognized by any standard: time.

    Nothing I’ve said suggests that the power of the state should intrude on a person who is not intruding on the life, liberty, or property of another.

    All I’ve said is that there is another human life to consider. THAT makes it a matter of interest to society, you idiot.

    It is your loopy, bankrupt (in every possible way) position that a human being is NOT a human being, and you have to resort to the disgusting rhetorical devices very depraved people have developed for that purpose. I note again, all you do is ape others and resort to the fallacy of authority.

    And, again, moron, it won’t take an amendment to pull down Roe. Just sound jurisprudence correcting one of the most abysmal decisions in Supreme Court history.

    Also, you continue to be really, really exorcised about this. This suggests some very strange kink you have, in addition to your apparent hatred for others with whom you disagree.

    Get some help. Everyone around you will benefit.

    filiusdextris in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 7, 2014 at 7:55 pm

    I don’t think you laid out a single argument there, just a series of ad hominems. I will only reply to “And what BUSINESS is it of yours, anyway?” Easy: it’s the same business that society must regard whenever murder is committed, whether within the womb or without.

    Again, any relativistic understanding simply denies rights to the weakest link du jour, be they babies, or Jews, or Christians, or Atheists. We have to stand up for an absolute right to life from which all other rights may flow. How are the unborn babies to have a right to “choose” (or any other more sensible right) later in life, if you take it away from them by murdering them now? Your only logical position is to deny that it is life, but that strains credulity given our science.

    What if SCOTUS agreed in a case that liberals have no rights under the Constitution for being brainless and heartless? How would you feel if it was open season on your life? Despite your grievous fallacies here, I would argue for your right to life just as much in that hypothetical. I mourn for you for your close-mindedness.

Wow. So in your heartless, brainless “reality” you would press MURDER CHARGES against a woman that suffers a miscarriage? A woman that has a stillborn child should be given the death penalty?(We have to stand up for an absolute right to life from which all other rights may flow). So, you would make a female subservient to the “human” growing inside her. And the prog/socialists deride bible thumpers for a “war on women”.

And to “rags”, FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE. There, I corrected your spelling. I see that all you snake handling bible thumpers “believe” you have a SUPREME AUTHORITY to intrude your “beliefs” into everyones life. Well, SCOTUS may not have an army, but no one has yet challenged it’s authority on the RIGHT to chose. Get yourself to Saudia Arabia. Other than “worshipping” another flying spaghetti monster, they seem to embody everything your type holds dear.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 7, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    See? You are really just too excited. Completely lost all sense of…anything. Unmoored, unhinged, lost your flucking mind. Not that you had much to work with.

    All you can do is slobber nonsense. And I actually LOVE seeing you like this. The close-minded, irrational, and hate-twisted “true believer” laid bare. I don’t mourn your close-mindedness. I piss on it. I haven’t the religious scruples filius does. I can reduce you to a shaking, drooling, red-faced clown and just laugh and laugh…!!!

    See, I just hate a bigot, and you, son, are a bigot. Plus, you’re just STOOOOOOOOOOoooooopid.

    LOVE IT…!!!

Yah, rags, you have no POINT, no PURPOSE and no RATIONAL! You just appoint yourself “right” and moveon. Well, BIGOT, you can’t require anyone to approve your superstition. And, gladly, the U.S. pisses on YOUR superstitions. Now go scrub some toilets and tell your betters you are “right”. Have you gone to any “funerals” for STILLBORN kids this week? Or do you not have any “friends”?

    Ragspierre in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 7, 2014 at 9:13 pm

    Heee, heee, HHHEEEEEEEE…

    WHAT in the wide, wide wonderful world of sports are you slobbering about now…???

    I DON’T work on any “superstitions”, you moron. Everything I’ve posted to you is rational and scientific.

    And you haven’t been able to answer ONE question I raised…!!!

    All you can do is blubber about “bible-thumping snake handlers”, which shows how insane you really are. Where do those phantoms come from in your life, idiot? Shows your deep, dark sickness, though.

    Dunnit…???

    I’d provide you a towel, but…

    Ragspierre in reply to Fiftycaltx. | September 7, 2014 at 9:16 pm

    Oh, and, honey…

    The word you want is “rationale”. I wouldn’t mention it, but you misused it twice, so I thought I’d help.

I agree my use of murder was a poor choice of words. It might be true in one sense (debatable), but probably not in most helpful senses. Besides that, it is unnecessarily inflammatory. Good catch, RP.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend