Wendy Davis declares she’s totally “pro-life” outside the womb

posted at 8:41 pm on November 6, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

You see, she’s pro-life because she cares deeply about those humans who are spared in the womb. She cares so much that after she’s done fighting to increase the probability that every single one of them could die for no particular pressing reason up to and beyond 5 months in utero, she’s really excited about government programs to help them. Not that she herself is going to care for them, per se, but she’s very in favor of enacting social programs with little regard to how much they actually help, which is good enough for the proxy compassion badge that being a loyal liberal scout earns you. That’s how much she cares. Cradle to grave benefits provided they can make it to the cradle before the grave.

“I am pro-life,” Davis said during a campaign stop at the University of Texas at Brownsville, according to the Valley Morning Star.

“I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future,” Davis said. “I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.”

It’s ludicrous, and maybe meant as a likely unsuccessful attempt to send the sneaky signal to conservative, low-info Democrats of Texas that she might indeed be “pro-life” despite the fact her national profile’s been made filibustering a bill that would limit abortions post 20 weeks. Hard sell since she’s on the opposite side of about 60 percent of Texans and most of Western Europe’s laws. It also reminds me of the creepy juxtaposition I’ve been treated to over the past couple of months thanks to a similarly brazen tack on this issue from Terry McAuliffe’s campaign and allies. Having just given birth to a tiny human, I often search baby-related items on the Internet. On those sites, I’m relentlessly served abortion ads by a candidate and a party who assume my first priority, while cuddling my new bundle of joy, is to preserve every possible opportunity to dispense with my next one before it completes its gestation period. Nothing like a McAuliffe abortion ad atop your breastfeeding app while you’re literally in the act of keeping a baby alive.

Emily Zanotti says of Davis’ “smug attempt to co-opt language,” “B**ch, please.” Also, let Emily bring you up to speed on the glory of the Davis campaign to date:

Wendy Davis took a ten point crash from the moment she announced that she was running for governor of Texas. She now trails her opponent, Greg Abbott, by around 15 points, despite her best efforts at courting every vote outside the state.

She’s lagging because of a few key features of her campaign. First, it makes gun control a key issue in a state where not only are the people heavily armed, but the livestock as well. Second, she’s allied her communications with Organizing for Action’s Texas arm, which promptly ran an ad making a joke about Greg Abbott walking into the legislature, when it is abundantly clear to everyone who has ever seen Greg Abbott that he cannot walk. She had yet to talk about the cornerstone of her political career, her filibuster of a Texas law that prevents abortions after 20 weeks, which rolled the Texas abortion deadline back from 24 weeks.

Pink tennis shoes weren’t made for mucking this much horse puckey.

Update: Also “pro-life.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I lean libertarian so I don’t see the big hoopla around social issues…including religion.

Redford on November 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I’m sorry you don’t see a big hoopla about preserving human life. Takes all kinds, I guess.

The Schaef on November 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM

I simply saying that abortion is a losing issue for the GOP. Women do not want to be told what they can or can’t do with their bodies. Davis is definitely not pro-life in the GOP definition of the phrase. Roe vs Wade will never be overturned. Dems have used this issue since 1973 as a ‘war on women’ tool and unfortunately it works in their favor. It doesn’t help when you have ‘Todd Aikens’ of the party making stupid rape comments.
I lean libertarian so I don’t see the big hoopla around social issues…including religion.

Redford on November 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Apparently Wendy Davis does see the “hoopla” if it’s important enough for her to lie about. Maybe you’d better get your head out of your ass and ask yourself why that is.

gryphon202 on November 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I lean libertarian so I don’t see the big hoopla around social issues…including religion.

Religion isn’t the issue we’re discussing.

bmmg39 on November 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM

This thread has had quite a bit of faith-based religious belief:
 

Do you support the rape/incest exception?
 
verbaluce on November 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

 

Are you pro-choice, and do you/don’t you support a rape/incest exception?
 
verbaluce on November 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM

 

What percentage of abortions are the result of rape and/or incest?
 
Solaratov on November 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

 

I don’t know.
 
verbaluce on November 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM

rogerb on November 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

I no longer consider you an intellectual peer. You’re an intellectual subordinate until you prove otherwise.

nonpartisan on November 6, 2013 at 10:24 PM

This was directed at Resist We Much….

it has to be one the most hilarious posts EVER.

Nonpartisan you are quite simply in the top 5 most dimwitted trolls to ever grace the internets. Truly funny.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM

“If you like your fetus, you can keep your fetus…”

Colony14 on November 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Are you pro-choice, and do you/don’t you support a rape/incest exception?
verbaluce on November 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM

If the pro life position begins with the premise that the unborn is indeed a separate and thus sovereign life then it shouldn’t be difficult to conclude that abortion used as birth control is in violation of this premise.

anuts on November 8, 2013 at 2:06 AM

If the pro life position begins with the premise that the unborn is indeed a separate and thus sovereign life then it shouldn’t be difficult to conclude that abortion used as birth control is in violation of this premise.

anuts on November 8, 2013 at 2:06 AM

Point of clarification: The pro life position really begins with the premise that a human life consists of a complete genome of 46 chromosomes (barring trisomy or other genetic abnormalities, of course), and that genome is present in the fertilized cell at the very moment of conception. That a life is separate and sovereign follows from that first premise.

gryphon202 on November 8, 2013 at 2:28 AM

Another unexplainable “Kill babies, but save cop killers” libtard position.

WestTexasBirdDog on November 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM

This seems to be the standard bearer of the far left. All the people for abortion are those that are already born. I don’t hear anything from those wanting to be born and live, even though we can see them squiring in the womb to try and avoid being pulled arm from arm leg from leg,or burned alive in a chemical blend or having their heads cracked open and their brains sucked out. This while knowing that there is proof that they feel pain at five months.

pwb on November 8, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Do you or do you not support an exception for that lower than 1%?

verbaluce on November 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Are these future humans, in this case, any less human? No.

This bit always confounded me. Why must these innocents pay for the crime another committed?

These babies are as much victims as their mothers who are being sentenced to death.

A baby conceived by rape or incest is not responsible for how they got here and should not be killed for it. The circumstances might be icky and make one uncomfortable but that is no (good) reason to murder.

The ONLY exception should be in the case where the womans life itself is threatened by the pregnancy. ONLY! Otherwise its pure cosmetics.

Sharr on November 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4