Sunday’s New York Times ran an interesting story about Wendy Davis, the Democratic State Senator from Texas who is running for Governor in November. Yeah, I laughed also when I read about a Democratic trying to get that seat.
Many of you might recall that Ms. Davis gained national attention last summer when for more than eleven hours she conducted a filibuster against proposed legislation that would have resulted in the closure of most of Texas’s abortion clinics. Ultimately, she did not succeed and the legislation became law. It is now being reviewed by the courts but some damage has already been done because several clinics have already closed.
Ms. Davis made headlines last summer because she was/is one of the few politicians in the country who had the guts to stand up and take a vigorous stand on the most controversial issue of our time. And she did it in a very conservative and hostile setting. It goes without saying that her filibuster ticked off a lot of her colleagues but what started out as a quiet parliamentary maneuver suddenly blossomed into a national cause célèbre as the social media spread the story. The women’s groups (obviously) hailed her as a champion, which I suppose got to her ego a little and thus she decided to take on the big boys in the Governor’s race.
Now, Ms. Davis has written the obligatory book about her life and the Times reported that in the book she admits to having had two abortions. The first one was after experiencing an ectopic pregnancy and the second was for “medical reasons.”
I’ve been involved in politics for a long time and I’m trying to think through the benefits, if any, of “coming out” about these abortions. Granted, during her filibuster she admitted the same at some point but that information seemed to get drowned out by the image of this woman fighting the powers that be in the legislature. But now it’s a headline in the New York Times: “Texas Candidate Reveals Personal Tale of Two Abortions.”
For the pro-choicers, they’re already thrilled that she is running for higher office and the fact that she actually had two abortions cannot make them any more excited or generous towards her. They’re in it for all it’s worth right now, their energy level is as high as it can go. And, of course, no one is “for” abortion, right?
On the other side, I haven’t seen much response from the anti-abortion side. No one that I can see has actually come out and condemned the abortions. Maybe that’s because they were both for “medical” reasons and even some anti-abortion people are a little more tolerant when it comes to those abortions. Indeed, her opponent, Greg Abbott, had a pretty good statement: “The unspeakable pain of losing a child is beyond tragic for any parent. As a father, I grieve for the Davis family and for the loss of life.” I think he is playing this very well.
Abortions for medical reasons, according to national polls, are more acceptable than the “convenience” abortions, as the anti-abortion crowd calls them. And Mr. Abbott’s careful response shows he is very savvy politically. And the irony would be if Ms. Davis’ revelation actually helped her opponent who could have blasted her but instead chose the compassionate response. This should be an interesting last two months of this campaign!

September 8, 2014 at 5:07 pm
One was an ectopic pregnancy. I wish people would not call that an abortion because both people will die if the pathologically damaged fallopian tube is not removed.
First time I heard the other was medical too, Pat. Are you sure?
LikeLike
September 9, 2014 at 5:51 pm
Yes, at least that’s what’s being reported. Something about the fetus being deformed, I believe.
LikeLike
September 9, 2014 at 6:11 pm
Well you can’t kill someone because she’s deformed.
LikeLike
September 15, 2014 at 8:33 am
In this country, you can if it’s a fetus
LikeLike
September 15, 2014 at 9:20 am
But not yet if he’s an infant or an octogenarian like me.
LikeLike
September 9, 2014 at 5:07 pm
The anti-abortion crowd, as you state, Pat, finds medical reasons for abortion more acceptable than “convenience” abortions. It may be true, in some circles, to publicly express a modicum of compassion for a woman with an ectopic pregnancy or a fetal demise or placenta abrupt. However, I seldom find such compassion in their words or deeds. Regardless, it seems that there are deeper and more onerous issues.
First, a woman’s reason for an abortion does not need justification. It’s not a convenience if she chooses abortion because she’s pregnant with a female fetus, a fetus with Down syndrome, or an unwanted fetus. Her reasons are valid and deserve our respect. Calling the procedure a “convenience” abortion simply allows the anti-abortion crowd another way to diminish a woman’s moral agency.
Second, life is more nuanced and complex than the overly simplistic, black-white world of those who are against abortions. Many are horrified that women choose to abort a female fetus but will do nothing about rampant sexism in our culture that drives women to want a male child over a female child. Many are quick to offer their simple solution of crumbs of compassion to see a woman through the delivery of her child but will do nothing about the poverty, homelessness and racism of the community in which the woman resides.
Third, if the anti-abortion crowd views the medical abortion as acceptable, as you claim it does, Pat, it is only because it is situated at the imagined intersections of divine intervention, human transcendence and salvation. Juxtaposed to the medical abortion, other abortions are framed as the selfish modern zeitgeist of a throwaway culture or, worse, as monstrous. With predictable frequency, the anti-abortion crowd’s banal rituals of fear mongering and social repudiation, directed at women and their companions, almost always fails. They taint themselves, appearing as the lunatic fringe with their repellant, dehumanizing words, prurient interests in women’s body parts and fascination with mutilated bodies.
Fourth, using derogatory catchphrases such as “throwaway culture” or the “selfish modern zeitgeist” or “convenience” or “selfish option” to label abortion is judgmental and utterly dehumanizing to women. Again, more evidence of their desire to diminish a woman’s agency.
Finally, philosophically, abortion is abortion is abortion, regardless of the reason. But, the anti-abortion crowd doesn’t want to see the tissue of hypocrisies that are stretched too thin over the contradictions in this medical vs. convenience comparison.
LikeLike
September 9, 2014 at 5:55 pm
Oh, I totally agree with you, Alice. That’s why I tried to use a lot of quotation marks! I always did find it interesting how anti-abortion people would/could somehow justify certain abortions. Like rape and incest. If it’s “killing a baby,” then why should that be okay? I mean, killing a baby is killing a baby, right? But even the late, great Henry Hyde supported exceptions for rape and incest. Very interesting and, to me, to totally hypocritical.
LikeLike
September 9, 2014 at 6:32 pm
Hyde was a politician wasn’t he? Wadiyawant?
You Pat, Kate, Chuckles, and other pro-deathers are all alike. We say you must not kill people. You say we are hypocritical, simplistic, compassion-less, anti-women, banal ritualists, fear mongerers, prurient, the lunatic fringe, necrophiliacs, and judgmental, among other things.
Suppose you’re right. You still shouldn’t kill people.
LikeLike
September 9, 2014 at 8:26 pm
John Dunkle writes “You still shouldn’t kill people” yet he proposed killing Dr. Blanks by putting a bullet in her head.
And then, years later, after Dr. Tiller’s death, John Dunkle asked the question, at an abortion clinic in Allentown PA, “How would you rather die? Slowly by a death or quickly by a bullet?”
The fact remains that John Dunkle thinks it’s OK to kill people. Plain and simple. Call the FBI.
LikeLike
September 10, 2014 at 3:50 am
“. . . he proposed killing Dr. Blanks by putting a bullet in her head.” I didn’t propose that. Dave Branca proposed it.
“Slowly by a death or quickly by a bullet?” I didn’t say that. I said, “Slowly by being pulled apart . . .”
“John Dunkle thinks it’s OK to kill people.” Neither of us thinks that, but both of us think it’s OK to kill an unjust attacker.
Your problem, Kate, is a basic intelligence ruined by biased education. I know you’re no dummy because you remember and repeat all my best stuff.
Finally, when Branca proposed that, Mary Blanks was no doctor; she was a serial killer. Now she’s back to being a doctor because I persuaded her to stop killing.
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 6:24 am
You forget, Dunkle, that we used and continue to use recording devices. We all remember what you said and repeated your words to the FBI agents in Allentown.
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 8:16 am
If I said something so stupid as “slowly by a death,” I should be horse whipped.
LikeLike
September 15, 2014 at 8:37 am
And whatever happened when you reported John’s words to the FBI? Has he ever been indicted? If not, is that a sign that what he has been doing is within the law?
LikeLike
September 15, 2014 at 8:35 am
I dont think I’ve ever called you a necrophiliac, John.
LikeLike
September 15, 2014 at 9:22 am
That was Ali: “fascinated with mutilated bodies.”
LikeLike
September 10, 2014 at 3:37 pm
Davis’ opponent, Greg Abbott, gave a pretty sly dog whistle saying he was as a father grieving for “the loss of life.”
The real power in the Pink House, as Molly Ivins pointed out, is not the governor, but the Lieutenant Governor, who sets the agenda and makes the key appointments. As she stated, it was Bob Bullock who made Shrub look like a good governor, and when he died, Shrub wept. That woman who’s running for Lt. Governor in Texas is the one who really needs to win.
LikeLike
September 10, 2014 at 4:52 pm
What the heck is Chuck talking about?
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 6:26 am
Wasn’t Molly Ivins the best? She and Ann Richards. When I was on a project for United Airlines, starting a call center in Mexico City, Ann Richards and Jimmy Carter were in town for the presidential elections. As much as I am not a celebrity-watcher, I do have to say that being in the same hotel, same elevator, same restaurant one evening was exciting. But that was then.
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 8:19 am
And this is now. Now you are in the same neighborhood, the same property, indeed the same parking lot and another luminary. Ahem.
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 8:21 am
with another luminary
LikeLike
September 15, 2014 at 8:38 am
I actually had to bring Molly to dinner one night before she spoke at one of our conventions. Pretty down the earth and even crude person, but great writer.
LikeLike
September 16, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Kathleen Turner was in a one-woman show as Molly Ivin. I saw her in Philly. She captured Ivin so incredibly well, performing her groundedness, complete with cigarette smoking and crude (at times) but hilarious as well as poignant stories.
LikeLike
September 16, 2014 at 6:15 pm
The only person I know here is dkr8. Who’s Turner? Who’s Ivins? (I’m good myself at performing groundedness.)
LikeLike
September 10, 2014 at 3:39 pm
And I don’t know why John Dunkle says I say “babies should be killed,” when I don’t– I say John Dunkle and the other so-called “pro-lifers” haven’t “rescued” a fetus until they’ve raised the resulting child to adulthood.
Actually, I do know why he levels that charge. He does it to give the impression that he cares for human life, when he actually doesn’t.
LikeLike
September 10, 2014 at 4:53 pm
What the heck is Chuck talking about?
LikeLike
September 12, 2014 at 3:47 am
Hey now I remember what Chuck’s talking about! Long ago he asked me why I work for someone to be born when I am not willing or able to raise her, you know, like paying for her college education and life insurance.
So I asked him, suppose she does get born. Would you do the same (i.e., raise her) to see that she gets past her first birthday, or do you support infanticide as you support feticide?
LikeLike
September 12, 2014 at 6:15 am
Mr. Dunkle, there is a difference between not being a party to someone’s decision to bear a child and insisting that she bear a child. Whenever I force somebody to bear a child, I have a responsibility to raise that child to adulthood. If somebody decides to bear a child and even decides to abuse, neglect or otherwise harm that child without my knowledge, I can hardly be charged with favoring such actions.
You and your so-called “pro-lifer” ilk, however, choose to compel childbirth, yet steadfastly refuse to take responsibility for the long-term consequences of your actions. So, why do you feel you shouldn’t be responsible for the outcome of a child whom you insist be allowed to toddle uncared for toward an abyss?
LikeLike
September 12, 2014 at 8:12 am
Let me repeat:
Mr. Chuckles, there is a difference between not being a party to someone’s decision to allowing her child to live past her first birthday and insisting that she allow her to live. Whenever I force somebody to let a child live, I have a responsibility to raise that child to adulthood. If somebody decides to let her child live and even decides to abuse, neglect or otherwise harm that child without my knowledge, I can hardly be charged with favoring such actions.
You and your so-called “pro-deather” ilk, however, choose to compel child rearing, yet steadfastly refuse to take responsibility for the long-term consequences of your actions. So, why do you feel you shouldn’t be responsible for the outcome of a child whom you insist be allowed to toddle uncared for toward an abyss?
Course, Chuck, if you support infanticide, I take back the above.
LikeLike
September 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm
I am astonished! Dunkle is OK with an abortion (yes, John, its and A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N) in the case of an ectopic pregnancy!
A quick check on various websites suggests 2% of pregnancies are ectopic. Some of them spontaneously end; others must go the surgery route. So, John, that means that SOME of the women you harrass at Reading and AWC are there for ectopic pregnancies. Yet you harrass them anyway.
Don’t even try to pretend that a hospital will do the procedure, because some Catholic hospitals have no staff sufficiently trained, and therefore actually direct those patients to local abortion clinics.
LikeLike