Top Menu

Follow Taylor on Twitter

Wendy Davis Makes a Clarification on 20-Week Abortion Ban

Wendy Davis under fire from some progressives for her clarification on 20-week abortion ban.

Wendy Davis under fire from some progressives for her clarification on 20-week abortion ban.

THERE IS an important race for governor in Texas starring Wendy Davis, who has a steep uphill battle to win, but whose candidacy was made possible through national attention over her abortion rights filibuster. In an interview with the Dallas News, Ms. Davis now states that she would have backed a 20-week abortion ban, had the bill given more “deference” to a woman and her doctor.

“I would line up with most people in Texas who would prefer that that’s not something that happens outside of those two arenas,” Davis said. …

[...] “My concern, even in the way the 20-week ban was written in this particular bill, was that it didn’t give enough deference between a woman and her doctor making this difficult decision, and instead tried to legislatively define what it was,” Davis said.

Planned Parenthood had no problems with this, nor did Emily’s List and NARAL. There are, however, some progressives not only concerned about Ms. Davis’s statement, but challenging her on it.

So, let me get this straight. Wendy Davis almost faints to the floor in a historic Texas filibuster defending the abortion rights of women, but now she’s not sufficiently feminist, because she’s said in an interview that a 20-week abortion ban, with appropriate deference to the woman and her doctor, is something she could have supported.

At Think Progress, one writer makes the argument that Davis’s position makes no sense. Then comes this nugget:

Furthermore, considering that abortions after 20 weeks make up just 1.5 percent of abortion procedures nationwide, it’s worth questioning whether any type of restriction in this area is actually necessary. What kind of impact is this law supposed to have? [Think Progress]

To follow that logic in the opposite direction, since “less than one-half of 1 percent of Texas abortions occur after 20 weeks of pregnancy,” why in the name of ideological fanaticism all that’s sane is anyone questioning Wendy Davis’s bonafides on this?

Even understanding that fetal viability is seen at 24-weeks legally, and no one wants to give the war on women brigade an inch, there is no good reason to make Ms. Davis explain herself any further or fight on any hill this small, especially since her clarification comports with the majority of Texas voters.

Nothing makes Republicans and the right-wing twitch faster than a Democratic female running for office who isn’t afraid to talk openly about abortion while perfectly representing what most of her constituency believes.

In contrast, the unhinged right runs around with their hair on fire and their rhetoric set on blow torch, saying Wendy Davis is making a “defense of abortions up to the day of birth.” This is an outright lie.

, , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to Wendy Davis Makes a Clarification on 20-Week Abortion Ban

  1. secularhumanizinevoluter February 12, 2014 at 8:43 pm #

    Excuse me….Ms. Davis supports a woman’s right to choice…..with this incredibly minor point that while I myself would reject considering the state she is running in is WORLDS apart from the knuckle dragging, mouth breathing repugnantklan,teabagging,UBERChristofascists she is fighting against…..could we please get real people?!!!!

  2. Ramsgate February 13, 2014 at 9:46 am #

    I admire Wendy Davis. Thing is in tough campaigns such as this one, clarifications or tweaks of prior positions or statements do not play well. The media and the opposition is always ready and waiting to pounce no matter how miniscule. All the so-called “ clarification” does is muddy the waters and provide ammunition to slander the candidate as indecisive and worse a flip/flopper.

    Moreover, if the procedure will have so little impact she would have been better off keeping her mouth shut. She may gain very little from this anyway. People prefer and admire conviction and consistency anyway.

    • Taylor Marsh February 13, 2014 at 11:37 am #

      Interviews require a candidate answer the question.

      It doesn’t “muddy the waters” unless you think purity tests are important for a candidate who almost passed out during a filibuster for defending women’s reproductive rights.

      This is good for her, even though her chances of winning this time around are very, very slim, at best.

      • Ramsgate February 13, 2014 at 4:12 pm #

        Interviews require that a candidate’s response to a question should be in keeping with the talking points and the overall strategy for winning.

        Nope. I don’t think purity tests are important. What I do think is that too often candidates of the left are “perceived as” softening their positions and deferring to the neanderthals on the right to gain their favor (and gaining nothing in return).

        Now you say it doesn’t muddy the waters. Let’s hope it does not. But as an ex ad-man, I can visualize the ad than can be run against her now because of what she said. Lastly, the very fact that this whole brouhaha made the headlines and that we are discussing this proves my point. She did not need this. Who or what will this bring to the Wendy Davis party?

        • Taylor Marsh February 13, 2014 at 6:30 pm #

          We simply disagree on the value of talking points. Old tool for untalented hacks.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong