Stand with Wendy Davis

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
Catchfire Catchfire's picture
Stand with Wendy Davis

WHAT WENDY DAVIS STOOD FOR

“Something special is happening in Austin tonight,” @BarackObama tweeted late Tuesday, with the hashtag #StandWithWendy. That is Wendy Davis, a Texas state senator who, at that point, had been standing on the floor of the legislature for more than nine hours—talking about women’s bodies, their health, their lives—and would stand for about four more before Republicans, amid shouting and with brazenly dubious parliamentary tactics, forced an end to her filibuster. By then, though, she had won both a temporary and a long-term victory: a bill that would have left only five abortion clinics in the two hundred and sixty thousand square miles of Texas failed, even though Republicans first tried to pretend that it hadn’t. They’ll get another chance. But Davis reminded everyone that despite the steady dismantling of abortion rights in state legislatures, it’s possible to fight back. People might yell at you on the floor and for you from the rafters, and you might, if only for the moment, win.

Davis had started her filibuster at about 11 A.M. The anti-abortion-rights bill would have banned the procedure after twenty weeks and placed conditions on clinics—for equipment, for admitting privileges for doctors at hospitals within thirty miles—that would have made it impossible for them to stay open. The best guess, looking at a map, was that some women in Texas would end up driving over the Mexican border, and others might end up in some back room. But the bill had to pass by midnight, when the session ended. And so Davis set out to talk until the next day.

She won!

Issues Pages: 
Catchfire Catchfire's picture
Timebandit Timebandit's picture

It was amazing to watch this all unfold last night via twitter and YouTube. The sad part is that the fight isn't over - just that small chapter.

Francesca Allan

Is there any room for compromise here?

Could we and they agree that earlier is better?

That comprehensive sex education and access to birth control is better still?

If this is sacrilegious, let me know and I'll make myself absent.

Ghislaine

Isn't having a high standard of health regulations for abortions clinics a good thing? Shouldn't the standards be the same as for other surgeries and medical procedures? I agree with not banning them after 20 weeks as a woman must decide for herself whether that is "too late". But in the wake of Kermit Gosnell and the fact this his clinic never received inspections by the health department for 17 yrs, high standards for abortions should be a progressive cause. It endangers women otherwise.  If only 5 abortion clinics will remain open....what kind of condition are the other ones in? If something does go wrong (rare but does happen) - shouldn't you have a doctor who can get you to a hospital asap? How does the regulation of Canada's clinics compare? Anyone know?

Setting a gestational age limit however is not a good idea. Only the woman involved should be making this decision. There are women who don't even know they are pregnant until almost too late, there are some women who don't find out until then that the fetus has a disability or abnormality, etc. etc. In Canada, I know that  you will have trouble finding someone willing to perform an abortion after 20 weeks, so we have our own issues with access. 

I read that the Governor called them back to vote again Monday...I don't know the rules re: US senate/house -does that mean this will pass? Or can Wendy Davis continue to filibuster? 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Francesca, the 20 weeks ban is really a red herring, meant to make people say exactly what you've just said.  It seems reasonable, right? If you were going to abort, you'd want to do it sooner than that.

The truth is that terminations over 20 weeks represent 1.5% of all abortions.  The vast majority of those are because either there is something catestrophically wrong with the fetus (serious genetic or developmental abnormality incompatible with life or resulting in severe debility) or the mother's life is at risk if she carries to term (pre-eclampsia is one instance that can occur).  Much of the time these things occur after the 20 week mark in a pregnancy. 

Not only would bill SB5 have banned termination in those circumstances, there were a raft of other provisions that would have closed all but 2 clinics in the entire state, limiting access to birth control, sex education and effectively banning earlier terminations as well without explicitly saying so. It's a stinky, stinky piece of woman-hating legislation.

Perry looks poised to bring it back in another special session. The GOP are such scum.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

First of all, a friendly reminder that a woman's right to choose is an unassailable principle of babble policy.

Francesca, like Timebandit says, there is no need for the government to get involved in this conversation at all. Women, doctors, midwives, social workers and other care providers are fully capable of making the decision of when to terminate a pregnancy. Why do we need to legislate what amounts to a medical decision? The answer is not relate to the health of the woman or any viable fetus -- it is, as the abortion debate has always been, political: about controlling women's bodies and creating wedge issues to influence voters.

The dirty tricks and bad faith governing on display during Wendy Davis's remarkable fillibuster ("the Lebron James of fillibustering." heh.) should only confirm this. I have never, ever seen any evidence that legislation like this, or any which seeks to control the decision-making and autonomy of women as ever having the interest of women or children (ha!) at heart.

Francesca Allan

Catchfire, I have never (not once!) nor will I ever question a woman's right to choose and your post offends (but doesn't surprise) me. I'm simply trying to suggest (here and elsewhere) that having one side call the other "baby killers" and the other calling their opponents "misogynists" is childish and futile and does nothing to foster any kind of agreement.

Timebandit, thank you for your thoughtful post. You make excellent points and I will incorporate them into my own ever-evolving opinion.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Francesca, it's my job to remind people of the terms of debate. I'm sorry if you felt targeted, but you weren't. We were venturing into discussions of choice and before I posted I wanted to remind everyone of that, since that's what I get my enormous salary to do.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

You know, although I agree that choice is and should always be one of the standing principles of discussion here, I think it's worth talking about the 20 week gambit.  It's a favourite of the anti-choice crowd because it conjures up images that are terrible and that it's easy to feel conflicted about.  It's easier to say, "Oh, no, I'm not in agreement with that!" I think later term abortion is something that even staunch feminists may find themselves disconcerted by under the right circumstances.  So it's valuable to acknowledge it, show it the light of day and reveal it for what it really is.  The more often we can point out what a falsehood and distraction it is, the better, IMV.

FWIW, I don't think Francesca was questioning choice, just expressing some squeamishness that in my experience even many pro-choice advocates sometimes feel when the question is framed a certain way.  And she's not wrong - earlier is better, in terms of physical and emotional outcome, birth control and sex ed so that unwanted pregnancies don't happen is better still. 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Wendy Davis's Mizuno Women's Wave Rider 16 running shoe reviewed on Amazon

The next time you have to spend 13 hours on your feet without food, water or bathroom breaks, this is the shoe for you. Guaranteed to outrun patriarchy on race day.

 

I was in the market for new shoes a few years back. One night I went to the shoe store and ran into this very pushy salesmen. I told him that I was browsing and not quite ready to buy yet. He wouldn't let up on his sale tactics and forcibly put a pair of shoes on me. I ran out of the store crying, not sure what to do.

Every time I would try to take them off, a man would show up out of nowhere and tell me that if I didn't want them I shouldn't have put them on in the first place. When I tried to explain they were forced upon me he would say if they were legitimately forced on me, my body would have rejected them. And if that was the case, i should have taken them off sooner. Luckily I had the means to leave the state. At which point I could finally take those shoes off.

I was squeamish about buying new shoes for many years after that incident. After much thought and deliberation with my family, I decided that the time was right. It was time to buy new running shoes. I wanted a pair I could stand in. Be proud of. That say "this is my choice and it is the right choice for me." I tried on the Mizuno women's wave rider 16. They were perfect. The fit, the style, the longevity. I feel like I can stand all day long and fight back against all the pushy salesmen when I have them on. They are the perfect choice for me and I hope you can find your choice too.

 

Do not buy these shoes

Even though...

1) I am a man and these are clearly women's shoes
2) I have never gone through the experience of wearing them
3) These shoes are not designed for my feet; and
4) They are of a color I would never wear...

I feel somehow compelled to decide for the shoe's female target market whether or not they should own them.

Don't.

Thank you.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Here's an article I read - it was just under my thinking during my last post, had to go look for it.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/fetal_pain_at_20_weeks_the_pain_capable_unborn_child_protection_act_will.html

It articulates some more reasons why the 20 weeks gambit is so dangerous.

Sineed

Francesca Allan wrote:

Is there any room for compromise here?

Could we and they agree that earlier is better?

That comprehensive sex education and access to birth control is better still?

If this is sacrilegious, let me know and I'll make myself absent.

1. Increasing access to contraception reduces the number of abortions. This is a "well, duh" that the anti-choicers refuse to accept: their agenda is religious and misogynist and has nothing to do with women's health. In EVERY jurisdiction where abortion is restricted, access to contraception is also restricted.

2. Increasing access to abortions has been found in longitudinal studies to reduce the number of abortions, probably for the reason stated in #1.

If the anti-choice people were really about the poor babies, they'd be in favour of sex ed and access to birth control. But they are not, which proves that their real agenda is controlling women's sexuality.

Sineed

Francesca wrote:
I'm simply trying to suggest (here and elsewhere) that having one side call the other "baby killers" and the other calling their opponents "misogynists" is childish and futile and does nothing to foster any kind of agreement.

Your points are reasonable, though I disagree. We call them "misogynists" because they are (see my prior post). They call us "baby killers," but we aren't because embryos aren't babies, and adopting our stance actually results in fewer abortions.

So they are name calling. We are using an accurate descriptor.

Quote:
Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008 (The Lancet 2012, Volume 379, issue 9816)

Background Data of abortion incidence and trends are needed to monitor progress toward improvement of maternal health and access to family planning. To date, estimates of safe and unsafe abortion worldwide have only been made for 1995 and 2003.

...

Findings  The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05).

Why aren't the anti-choicers joining hands with the pro-choicers in making sure all women had ready access to birth control, sex ed and abortion? 

Francesca Allan

Sineed wrote:

Why aren't the anti-choicers joining hands with the pro-choicers in making sure all women had ready access to birth control, sex ed and abortion? 

Even just cooperation on the first two would be a great start. I'm probably naive, I know, but I do think it's possible that we'll see some progress in that direction.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I doubt that a middle ground is possible, and I think the Saletan article I linked to explains pretty clearly why. 

The same people who are for banning and restricting abortion are also advocating abstinence only sex ed (which is not sex ed at all, more the anti-sex ed). They're also for restricting access to birth control.  Their reasons aren't practical or evidence-based, they're ideological.  In their worldview, you can't really compromise with us - that's just a deal with the devil and it makes the baby jesus cry.

Ultimately, the right to control your own body has to be recognized as a basic human right.  I'd also like to see religion put in its proper place, behind closed doors, because religious thinking is behind this. Unfortunately, that will be a long time coming in the USA.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Sineed wrote:
If the anti-choice people were really about the poor babies, they'd be in favour of sex ed and access to birth control.

Or, indeed, they'd be in favour of ending child poverty, improving access to quality childcare and early education, and investing heavily in schools -- all staunch pillars of Republican political platforms...

Francesca Allan

Actually, it's not universal. I know people who are anti-abortion yet support sex ed and birth control.

Apparently, they're in the minority though.

I like this article:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

quizzical

Timebandit wrote:
Here's an article I read - it was just under my thinking during my last post, had to go look for it.

 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/fetal_pain_at_20_weeks_the_pain_capable_unborn_child_protection_act_will.html

It articulates some more reasons why the 20 weeks gambit is so dangerous.

it's a great article tks printed it out to put in my salon

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:

Actually, it's not universal. I know people who are anti-abortion yet support sex ed and birth control.

Apparently, they're in the minority though.

I like this article:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

I like Libby Anne's blog, have been reading it off and on for a few years now. 

I think her blog post points out more or less what I'm saying, though - the people who most vocally oppose access to abortion also opposed informed use of birth control, or to women having autonomous sex lives at all. 

I understand that on this issue there are shades of grey.  But I also think that reading Libby Anne's evolution from anti-choice to pro-choice, you realize this is an evolution of position for a lot of women.  What it really comes down to in the end is that even if you aren't comfortable with the idea of abortion, it has to be part of women's choice.  I think most women who have terminated a pregnancy see it as a choice of last resort.  I also think it's easier to be against abortion if there are some shoes you haven't stood in.  That aside, though, it's hard not see that there will always need to be safe and open access to abortion because when there isn't, women die from unsafe abortions.  

The people you know who are anti-abortion yet pro sex ed - How many object to the scenarios that are the vast majority of the 20+ week terminations I sketched out above?  What about rape or incest? I think you'd find their views more nuanced than blanket abolition most of the time.

Sineed

Francesca Allan wrote:

Actually, it's not universal. I know people who are anti-abortion yet support sex ed and birth control.

Apparently, they're in the minority though.

I like this article:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

Love that article! I applaud her courage to have the intellectual honesty to recognize the contradictions in the pro-life position.

In that Lancet article I quoted above, throughout the world, wherever abortion is restricted, access to birth control also tends to be restricted. I have also met people who are against abortion and in favour of ready access to sex ed and contraception, but these people are like openly gay Republicans: they're outliers who don't really prove anything outside their own maverick worldview.

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Here's an article I read - it was just under my thinking during my last post, had to go look for it.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/fetal_pain_at_20_weeks_the_pain_capable_unborn_child_protection_act_will.html

It articulates some more reasons why the 20 weeks gambit is so dangerous.

I'm glad the article represented the slippery slope tactics of the pro-lifers "if one day [after conception], why not one week, one month, etc" and that, really, they are grasping at straws and misrepresenting facts to get what they want. I'm sick of the garbage they represent as fact just to push their agenda and control women's bodies.

What is overly irritating is that the movement is called "pro-life" yet what is lacking is the understanding that in the big picture, forcing something to be illegal doesn't make it go away, just makes it more dangerous, and women will continue to die from unsafe abortions. And, many women seeking abortions after 20+ weeks do so because of risk to health and life (which, you know if the mother dies, the fetus doesn't have a great shot.)

And Rick Perry's comments on Wendy Davis were awful. I don't understand why pro-lifers think that if a woman chooses in a difficult circumstance to have the baby that means she can't be pro-choice, or should see the merits of being anti-choice.  

Also, congrats Perry on your states 500th execution. Frown

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

I think the bill is being discussed today too in Texas, here is a "nice" round up by MoJo, featuring a quote of my favourite outlandish statement:

The 10 Most Absurd Things Texas Republicans Said About Abortion This Year:

State Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R): Laubenberg, the bill's sponsor, suggested during the floor debate that there was no need to include an exception for victims of rape, because rape kits are themselves a form of abortion: "In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out. The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development."

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Re: Perry's comment - I totally agree!  Just because you've made a choice TO have a child doesn't mean you don't respect and support a spectrum of choice. 

Apparently the revisit is pushed off to July 9.  The scary thing is that there are several other states that have already put such restrictions in place.

Bacchus

I chose to have a bagel today, tomorrow I might chose to have a cheeseburger instead. Its what people do

 

Fuckwits

 

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

@timebandit, yes! Slate had that article out today! So awful!

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Bacchus wrote:

I chose to have a bagel today, tomorrow I might chose to have a cheeseburger instead. Its what people do

 

Fuckwits

 

Ya, Rick Perry is the fuckin worst. He also had the gall to say this bill was to "protect women" (!!!) What a crock of shit. Protect women by taking away rights and safe access. Good job.

Bacchus

Actually today I did decide to have a cheeseburger but had totally forgot posting that yesterday lol

 

Rick Perry can kiss my fat white ass

onlinediscountanvils

[url=http://gawker.com/wendy-davis-is-suddenly-fine-with-the-abortion-ban-she... Davis backs 20-week abortion ban that defers to women[/url]