Tag Archives: abortion

political news, State news

Watch for the response to Davis memoir

Texas is full of armchair political experts. You can call me one of them, as I’m liable to offer an opinion or two on occasion on how I see the state of play across the state’s enormous landscape.

A friend of mine is another one. He tilts the other direction. I lean left, he leans right.

A recent blog post I published wondered aloud about the possible political impact that Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis’s revelation that she ended a pregnancy would have on her bid to become the state’s next governor. My friend responded that it wouldn’t budge her “dismal” poll numbers. She’ll still lose to Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, my friend believes.

I agree that the news by itself isn’t likely to budge the numbers in Davis’s favor. Abbott remains a solid favorite to win the gubernatorial election in November.

What could influence this race, however, is the response to her memoir, “Forgetting to Be Afraid,” and the item in it in which she reveals she aborted a pregnancy in the second trimester because she and her then-husband learned that their unborn daughter had a rare and potentially fatal brain disease.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/wendy-davis-ended-pregnancy-110659.html?hp=l17

Will her GOP opponent make hay over it? Probably not.

However, he has some zealous supporters across the state who just might try to make something of it. They just might seek to rub Davis’s face in the tragedy that darkened her life. They very well might want to resurrect the “Abortion Barbie” epithet that was attached to her after she led that legislative filibuster in 2013 that derailed temporarily a restrictive anti-abortion bill in the Texas Senate.

A lack of discretion on their part well might rouse some anger among those who otherwise would be inclined to vote for Abbott but who take issue with those who are beating up a political opponent over a decision that transcends politics. Indeed, that kind of personal tragedy ought to be out of bounds.

The more zealous among us — on both ends of the political spectrum — too often think everything is on the table. In the case involving Wendy Davis, acting on that instinct could blow up in their face.

 

Uncategorized

Abortion is personal for Wendy Davis

Wendy Davis has come clean on the issue that to date has defined her campaign for Texas governor.

The Democratic nominee for governor reveals in a memoir that she terminated a pregnancy. Why? Her unborn child had a potentially fatal brain disease so she and her then-husband made the heart-wrenching decision, during the second trimester of her pregnancy, to end it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/wendy-davis-ended-pregnancy-110659.html?hp=f2

Her memoir, “Forgetting to be Afraid,” goes on sale next week.

It’s fair to wonder: What does this revelation to do her prospects for winning the Texas governorship?

She won’t win any Republican votes, to be sure. Her GOP opponent, Greg Abbott, already is a strong favorite to win the election in November. Will her acknowledging of this abortion galvanize pro-choice supporters to vote? Will her declaration be a testament to the courage it took for her to say it? I don’t know.

This kind of intensely personal crisis, though, does put Abbott in a bit of a bind.

The reasons Davis gives for aborting the pregnancy falls precisely into the circumstance that many anti-abortion activists and lawmakers are willing to exempt from laws that criminalize the act of receiving an abortion.

Did Davis and her husband seek this recourse with no regard to its consequence? Hardly. She writes that she felt a “deep, dark despair and grief, a heavy wave that crushed me, that made me wonder if I ever would surface.” She writes that she did recover emotionally and emerged someone who was changed forever.

Is this the kind of thing Abbott and/or his campaign team wants to exploit? No. I am certain the state’s attorney general will stay away from this issue. His supporters, though, might not be so circumspect.

This is the kind of intensely personal decision that only a woman can make with those who she loves and with God Almighty — and any effort to demonize Wendy Davis could carry some serious political risk for those who start throwing stones.

 

 

political news, State news

Texas abortion fight takes key turn

A federal judge has ruled that a critical part of the Texas anti-abortion violates the U.S. Constitution.

Good for him.

The judge is Lee Yeakel, who presides over the U.S. District Court’s Western District of Texas. His ruling declares that a provision in the law that requires abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospitals puts an unfair restriction on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion if she chooses.

Judge strikes down Texas abortion restrictions

Thus, the fight will continue. The state is certain to appeal this ruling. The leading candidate for governor, Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, is a strong supporter of the law; his Democratic opponent, state Sen. Wendy Davis, rocketed to national political fame when she led a filibuster in 2013 to “kill” temporarily the bill that would become state law.

Yeakel ruled that the intent of the law was to close only existing licensed abortion clinics. The law, he said, goes too far in establishing the stricter standards on par with ambulatory surgical centers.

So, why the curious turn here?

Yeakel was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush, another strong anti-abortion politician.

I’m as certain as I’m sitting here that we’re going to hear comments from critics of the ruling declare their disgust with “unelected” federal judges overreaching and “writing laws from the bench.”

Again, this is the beauty — not the bane — of the federal judicial system. Judges aren’t beholden to their political benefactors, the politicians who select them for these lifetime jobs.

Abbott says he’ll appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans, where he thinks he’ll get it overturned.

Would those judges be overreaching and writing laws from the bench?

 

 

Uncategorized

Dowd obsession nothing new

Maureen Dowd apparently has it in for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The New York Times columnist been pounded by critics over her blog post in which she used a tribute to the late comic genius Robin Williams as a jumping-off point to blast the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08/13/maureen-dowd-reaches-self-parody-links-robin-wi/200415

I guess that’s what happens when zealots latch onto an issue, or a personality, and cannot let either of them go.

To be blunt, I’ve seen my share of them during my own career in print journalism. One of them stands out.

He lives in Amarillo. His name is David Grisham, who purports to be a preacher. I guess he is, given that anyone can preach his or her version of the Bible to anyone willing to listen.

Grisham also is an avid anti-abortionist. And I do mean avid. Maybe fervent is a better word.

He’s submit letters to the editor on this subject or that, but somehow would find a way to insert his view of abortion into the discussion.

I can’t recall precisely how he did it, but he might be prone to use such references while discussing, let’s say, downtown Amarillo redevelopment. He might say something like this: “I oppose downtown Amarillo’s planned redevelopment because I don’t want to see my tax money paying for an abortion clinic that could be built within the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone.”

Dowd’s connection between Hillary Clinton and Robin Williams does seem like a stretch. These things do present themselves, sadly, when one cannot hide his or her zeal.

Uncategorized

Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion

2 Comments

I’ve just finished reading a blistering series of social media responses to state Sen. Wendy Davis’s visit to the Texas Panhandle.

The Fort Worth Democrat — her party’s nominee to be the next governor of Texas — became an instant political celebrity at the end of the 2013 Legislature when she filibustered a bill that would restrict abortions in Texas. The bill became law after a subsequent special legislative session, but Davis made her mark by filibustering the bill to death in an earlier session.

She’s become the No. 1 target of “social conservatives” who will not forgive her — not ever — for taking the position she took. She opposed the law making abortion illegal after the 20th week of pregnancy. Indeed, she opposes government telling a woman that she must complete a pregnancy. She believes that choice belongs to the woman, her physician, her partner and God.

The tirades I’ve read about Davis seem to harp on a single point, which is that Davis condones abortion, that she’s a “baby killer.”

I know this is not going to go over well with some of the more conservative readers of this blog, but I feel the need to make this point.

A pro-choice policy on abortion does not equal being pro-abortion.

A pregnant woman always has the choice on whether to give birth. If she is unable to rear a child, the law enables her to terminate the pregnancy. She also has the choice of delivering that child and allowing someone else to adopt the child. The woman also has the choice of delivering the child and rearing the child herself, or with her husband or partner, or with her parents or some other family member or close friend.

These are choices the woman makes. To suggest that a pro-choice policy on abortion equates to being pro-abortion takes demagoguery to a new level.

My hope is that the campaign for Texas governor will avoid that kind of rhetoric in the months to come. My fear, based on what I’ve seen just today, is that it won’t.

Uncategorized

Huckabee reveals his truer self, apparently

Hey, wasn’t Mike Huckabee supposed to be the voice of a new brand of “compassionate conservatism,” a term made popular by another prominent Republican, a guy named George W. Bush?

The former Arkansas governor and ordained Baptist preacher — who also happens to play a pretty good bass — once was considered a good guy even among those who likely wouldn’t vote for him.

Now comes this little item.

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it. Let us take that discussion all across America.”

Gov. Huckabee made that statement to a Republican gathering just this week — and has reopened the firestorm relating to why the GOP keeps doing so badly among women.

“Uncle Sugar.” What an endearing term. As one commentator said this week, such terminology in street lingo is meant to refer to pimps. Here’s a preacher, a man of God, suggesting Democrats are trying to persuade the “women of America” that they need good ol’ Uncle Sugar to provide them with contraceptives because they just can’t control their desire to have sex.

I rather liked the compassionate conservative Mike Huckabee. This version of himself, which he rolled out when he became a Fox News TV commentator and talk show host, is quite unappealing. I only can imagine what the women of America will be thinking once they start considering the 2016 campaign for the U.S. presidency.

Uncategorized

Texas abortion law takes strange turn

Well, how about this: A federal judge nominated by a recent Republican president has overturned part of Texas’s controversial anti-abortion law.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, picked for the federal bench in Austin by President George W. Bush in 2003, has tossed a serious wrench into the state’s effort to make abortion an illegal act in Texas.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/29/federal-court-rules-abortion-restriction-unconstit/

Yeakel has ruled that the portion of the law that requires abortion providers to be within 30 miles of hospital is unconstitutional. Here is how Texas Tribune reported the judge’s ruling: “Abortion providers would have been required to obtain hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the abortion facility and follow federal standards for the administration of abortion-inducing drugs. Yeakel ruled that the hospital privileges requirement was unconstitutional because it created an undue burden on women without serving a rational purpose. He also said drug-induced abortions could be performed following a common evidence-based regimen if the physician believed it was safer for the patient.”

The state has asked for a stay of the judge’s ruling. No word as I write this about whether the stay has been granted.

Here’s a case of a judge unencumbered by politics, ruling without threat of reprisal.

I do like the federal standard for judicial appointments. A lot of federal judges over many decades have disappointed their political sponsors by issuing rulings that run counter to the political leanings of the person who appoints them. Critics of these judges usually label them a “activist” or “out of the mainstream” or some other pejorative term.

My own view is that judges should be free to rule on the law as they interpret it without fearing for their political survival. State judges — such as those we elect in Texas — often are punished at the ballot box for delivering decisions that upset voters, regardless of the legal correctness of that decision.

Judge Yeakel has opened a big-time debate now in Texas over whether the anti-abortion law — which produced a legislative debate that propelled Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis onto the national stage with her wild filibuster — can pass constitutional muster.

Oh, the complexity of a democratic form of government.

Uncategorized

Abortion becomes ultimate wedge issue

An editorial in the Monday Amarillo Globe-News poses an interesting — but patently unfair — question about a Texas state senator and probable candidate for Texas governor.

“(W)hat does state Sen. Wendy Davis bring to the table other than support for abortion?”

That was the question. Davis, D-Fort Worth, is likely to announce this week that she’ll seek the Democratic nomination for governor in 2014. She’s a star in a Texas Democratic Party that has been bereft of shining lights for the past two decades.

I’ll talk later about Davis’s candidacy but I will discuss abortion as a campaign issue.

Davis filibustered a Republican-sponsored bill this past summer that would have placed serious restrictions on women’s ability to seek an abortion. She won a temporary victory and gained considerable political mileage from that fleeting triumph. The Legislature approved the bill in a subsequent special session and Gov. Rick Perry signed it into law.

Does she “support” abortion? One would have to assume that Davis’s filibuster was meant to signal a support for the procedure on demand, for whatever reason. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard Wendy Davis declare her “support” for abortion. What she opposes, I’m able to surmise, are laws that restrict women from making that choice for themselves.

Indeed, it is unfair to ascribe “support for abortion” to Sen. Davis, if one is to look at her own history. She became pregnant while she was unmarried. She chose to give birth to her child. She reared that child to adulthood and along the way earned a good education and has carved out a nice career in public service.

Yet the abortion debate too often turns on these wrong-headed assumptions anti-abortion rights folks make about those who favor the rights of women to end a pregnancy. They often suggest that if you believe a women should have the right to make that choice then you are by definition “pro-abortion.”

The discussion should be far more nuanced than that. Sadly, it’s not. Abortion has become arguably the most divisive wedge issue in American politics.

Uncategorized

Wendy is in, apparently … reportedly

The semi-official word is out that state Sen. Wendy Davis is going to run for governor of Texas in 2014.

That’s according to sources who’ve spilled the beans to news outlets such as Politico that the Fort Worth Democrat is going to seek the state’s highest office.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/wendy-davis-texas-2014-97410.html

This is a good thing for Texas.

The state hasn’t witnessed a truly exciting governor’s race since 1994, when a Republican upstart named George W. Bush challenged Democratic incumbent Ann Richards — and beat her. That contest actually was the last in a lengthy line of interesting Texas governor’s races.

It’s been downhill, interest-wise, ever since.

Davis vs. The Republican (probably Attorney General Greg Abbott) would gin up interest the state hasn’t seen in two decades.

Will the Democrat break the Republicans’ stranglehold on statewide offices? Well, I’m thinking the odds remain pretty long. Abbott has the money and the appropriate party label. Texas has swung so far to the right politically that it seems highly unlikely anyone to the left of Genghis Khan can win anything in this state.

If anyone can do it, Wendy Davis — who made herself famous nationally with her one-woman filibuster this summer of an anti-abortion bill — might be the candidate. She’s smart (despite what some of Abbott’s supporters have said over social media), telegenic (which is code for attractive) and well-spoken.

I’m not going to bet my next Happy Meal on Davis’s chances on beating The Republican. I would be delighted, though, to see some genuine excitement in the campaign for what once was considered a “weak political office.” That, of course, changed under the interminable reign of Gov. Rick Perry.

The next governor is going to inherit an office that’s been strengthened considerably because of the way Perry consolidated his power. Texans should pay attention whether Davis runs or stays out.

If she runs, my guess is that we’ll all be paying careful attention.

We’ll know on Oct. 3 when Davis is expected to make her intentions known. Stay tuned. This is likely to get fun.

Uncategorized

Unborn babies would vote Republican?

Texas Railroad Commissioner Barry Smitherman is reaching deeply into the darkest corners of some rhetorical warehouse for a recent comment on abortion, politics and related matters.

Smitherman is running for the Republican nomination for Texas attorney general. He told a Texas anti-abortion group that most unborn babies would vote Republican.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/30/smitherman-unborn-babies-would-have-voted-republic/

Smitherman was the keynote speaker of the Alliance for Life meeting in mid-August. An abortion-rights activist, Jessica Luther, called the remark a “strange statement.” Meanwhile, Smitherman spokesman Allen Blakemore, said his boss was merely citing a “statistic,” given that Texas is a heavily Republican state.

I’m trying to figure out precisely what Smitherman’s message is intended to convey. If it was meant to state the obvious, as Blakemore noted, I find it an odd expression. I’m inclined to go a little farther than how Luther described it. It sounds downright weird.