Today is the one year anniversary of mob and chaos that Leticia Van de Putte and Wendy Davis initiated and encouraged when the Texas Senate began to vote on a law to prohibit abortion after 20 weeks and require doctors who perform abortion to have privileges at a nearby hospital and to use the FDA guidelines that they agree to use before becoming eligible to This was the response of one woman to prayer and a crucifix last year at the Texas Legislature.
The women were following the leader of a man who shouted, “Whose choice?” by chanting “My choice.”It strikes me as odd that every time I witnessed one of these chanting/response sessions, a man was leading the women. That’s not the version of feminism I expected.
This picture came from a video that I took on July 2, during House testimony on HB5, which later became law prohibiting abortion after 5 months and protecting women who chose to undergo abortion.
That lawsuit in which Dan Patrick revealed his mental health history isn’t new-news. In fact, he was criticized for failure to report it in a voters’ questionnaire just last January and it was covered in an article in the Texas Monthly, back in 2007.
If a person files a lawsuit claiming damages and mentions mental problems, his medical records will become part of the court records and public. Patrick initiated and lost both a criminal trial and a civil lawsuit against a Houston reporter and his newspaper, opening the door to last week’s revelations.
However, what should be news is the contrast between the reaction from the Right about Patrick’s lawsuit and Wendy Davis’ lawsuit seeking damages for the way a newspaper treated her:
Somehow, these same venues have not criticized Dan Patrick for his lawsuit demanding damages from a Houston newspaper and reporter.
The Left hasn’t missed the difference, and some have called it hypocrisy:
“So: both unsuccessfully sued the press, both endured revelations of mental anguish. The only real difference is that Patrick’s mental health troubles would seem, on the available evidence, to be much more substantial and long-lasting. Many conservatives in the state are rallying around Patrick: How did they treat Davis when her (very minor) admission was written up last November by noted slug pundit Eric Erickson?”
Well, flip! Substitute my F-word for their F-word and drop the suggestion that even straight women want to “do ‘very sexy things’ to Windy, and I could have had the Vast WingRight Conspiracy laughing at this column. Ironically, the f’ing-bomb-this and f-bomb-that commenters all seem to take Wonkette’s “satire” take on Windy as a sex object as supportive!
Wonkette is a left-wing blog whose writers spew forth with a foul keyboard, and I think that she and her readers are serious about supporting Windy. It’s just that their support is . . . shall we say “bent?”
Most of the readers of WingRight would agree that it’s preposterous to complain about “ties” to a Political Action Committee with which Greg Abbott has had no dealings since 2004. And it’s true that Windy ain’t Ann Richards.
But Wonkette’s Rebecca Shoenkopf is mostly upset that Windy’s campaign might object to the “very sexy things” comment.
Even odder than a feminists’ objection to an imagined objection from Windy is the use of an Austin-American Statesman article entitled “Greg Abbott holds double-digit lead over Wendy Davis, who is viewed unfavorably by almost half the electorate” to support the idea that Greg Abbott is a “nothingburger:” “
If I were being exceptionally kind, I’d interpret Texas Democratic Governor candidate (and portable urinary catheter user) Wendy Davis’ position on abortion restrictions as, “Whatever the Supreme Court rules is good enough for me.” When not so generous, I’d say she’s not answering the question.
What Wendy Davis said,
“Davis, while addressing the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2013, was asked, “Could you discuss what legal limits on abortion you do support?”
She replied, “You know, the Supreme Court has made that decision. And it’s one of the protected liberties under our Constitution. And I respect the constitutional protections that are in place today.”
So in her response in Washington, Davis signaled that she both accepts letting states limit abortions after the first trimester and limit or ban abortions after fetuses are viable, unless the mother’s life is at risk.
How refreshing it would be if one of the “fact-checkers” actually asked the hard questions of a pro-abortion Dem!
Whoever they are, they aren’t from – or for – Texas!
I’ve had several calls from 202-719-2244, caller ID, “Washington, DC.” They don’t leave a message. I finally got to the phone in time to answer, only to hear the recorded message. Turns out to be a push-poll for Wendy Davis, paid for by “Justice for All PAC.” (Remember, she’s the woman who filibustered in favor of abortions after 5 months, shutting down the Texas Senate with that mob. She’s running for the Democrat nomination for Texas Governor.)
I can’t find much about the PAC out of DC, although the name is currently being used for the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association. There’s a Facebook page out of Michigan.
However, a little more research shows that the phone number belongs to a telemarketer firm. According to the websites “Caller Central” and “800Notes.com.” callers using this number claimed they were collecting donations for victims of Sandy or the Oklahoma tornadoes. ” WhoCallsme.com reports that they were once used to collect money for justice for Trayvon Martin.
Update: see the spoof at WindyDavis4Tx.