Tag Archives: abortion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wait until governor’s race really heats up

Well, it hasn’t taken long at all for a potential campaign for Texas governor to get, um, real nasty.

A backer of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has referred to state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Forth Worth, as “retard Barbie,” which Abbott responded with a word of “thanks for your support” in a tweet.

Abbott’s lack of disgust over the description of a potential opponent for the governorship — that would be Davis — has drawn intense fire already from another Democratic leader.

Abbott backer calls Wendy Davis ‘Retard Barbie,’ Abbott thanks him for support

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilbert Hinojosa said this in a statement:

“That Greg Abbott would thank a supporter for calling Senator Wendy Davis a ‘Retard Barbie’ is absolutely disgusting and disturbing. This is what Republicans think about women — that a Harvard law school graduate, State Senator, and a long time fighter for Texas families deserves such inappropriate slander. Greg Abbott endorses such disrespect. The people of Texas deserves so much better than this from their public officials. And the women of Texas deserve leaders who respect them as human beings.”

Davis hasn’t yet said whether she’ll run for governor next year, although some observers think the signs suggest she’s getting ready to go for it.

Run, Wendy, run.

Texas GOP goes off the rails

A Texas Republican lawmaker thinks state Sen. Wendy Davis should pay for one of three special sessions of the Texas Legislature?

Insanity has gripped this guy by the throat.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/01/2395671/wendy-davis-special-session-pay/

State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that Davis, a Fort Worth Democrat, should reimburse the state for the cost of the special sessions because she led a Democratic filibuster of an anti-abortion bill that was approved during the second special legislative session.

“I am upset at the cost,” Capriglione said. “I think we need to remember why we are having this extra special session. One state senator, in an effort to capture national attention, forced this special session. I firmly believe that Sen. Wendy Davis should reimburse the taxpayers for the entire cost of the second special session. I am sure that she has raised enough money at her Washington, D.C., fundraiser to cover the cost.”

The special session cost the state about $2.4 million.

OK, then how about putting the Republican legislative caucus on the hook for the cost of the third special session after those folks killed a transportation funding bill that Gov. Rick Perry – another Republican – keeps insisting the state needs? Maybe the GOP caucus could pay for all the special sessions after insisting that the Legislature approve the restrictive anti-abortion bill that ignited the partisan firestorm in the first place?

Capriglione is proud that he isn’t accepting the $150 per diem payment for the special session. He purports to be a “fiscal conservative.” He also must not need the money.

Some legislators’ penchant for grandstanding knows no bounds.