Quantcast

«

»

Nov 10 2013

Wendy Davis’ Pro-Life Position

I have always hated the term “pro-life,” especially when it’s used by people who grab their pom-poms and start cheering for every war that comes along and don’t give a damn about a fetus once it’s born. So I loved this statement from Texas state Rep. Wendy Davis:

“I am pro-life,” she told a University of Texas at Brownsville crowd on Tuesday. “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. I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.”

“This isn’t about protecting abortion,” Davis explained in the same appearance. “It’s about protecting women. It’s about trusting women to make good decisions for themselves and empowering them with the tools to do that.”

The right wing blogosphere is losing its mind over this, of course, but she’s right. I don’t want to hear how “pro-life” someone is when they spend their time, money and effort trying to defund Planned Parenthood, which is often the only provider for family planning, pre-natal care and cancer screening for low-income women. I don’t want to hear how “pro-life” someone is if they enthusiastically support every war the government thinks of, or wants to cut food stamps and Medicaid for poor people. They’re not pro-life, they’re pro-fetus. The moment that fetus is born, they suddenly transform into a baby that is denigrated for relying on “entitlements,” and their mother is then a “welfare queen.”

14 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    bahrfeldt

    Let’s add, being against judicial executions is being truly “pro-life”.

  2. 2
    Reginald Selkirk

    Texas, the pro-life state where Gov. George W. Bush turned Death Row into an assembly line.

  3. 3
    raven

    have always hated the term “pro-life,” especially when it’s used by people who… support xian terrorism, bombings, and assassination of medical personnel.

    They aren’t pro-life.

    They are forced birthers and female slavers.

  4. 4
    magistramarla

    I think that it is important that we not allow the wingnuts in Texas to portray Wendy Davis as a single issue candidate. She is the best candidate for the issues concerning education, the climate, income inequality, the needs of the disabled and elderly and of course, the health issues for all Texans.
    As a disabled person, my blood boils at the way Abbott sued for a fortune after the accident that disabled him and then supported tort reform so that others could never gain in the way that he did.
    He also campaigned to have state buildings exempted from the ADA, making access more difficult for disabled people who might be interested in getting involved.

  5. 5
    Michael Heath

    One of the heights of conservative Christian hypocrisy and dishonestly is their outrageously dishonest claim they’re ‘pro-life’. However many mainstream pro-abortion rights advocates also demonstrate hypocrisy, which we observe in Rep. Davis in this very blog post:

    “This isn’t about protecting abortion,” Davis explained in the same appearance. “It’s about protecting women. It’s about trusting women to make good decisions for themselves and empowering them with the tools to do that.”

    Sure it’s partly about protecting abortion rights; what a transparently false claim. Fighting to protect the exercise of abortion rights in Texas given the recent passage of legislation there is the very crux of what Rep. Davis is laudably doing.

    I’m appalled by some liberals who compare the unborn to a parasite to promote the unfettered exercise of abortion. But I’m also disgusted with abortion rights advocates who support abortion rights while denying or avoiding that their position promotes abortions as we encounter here by Rep. Davis. It’s frustrating to encounter liberals also practicing the denial or avoidance of inconvenient facts; that’s an attribute liberals should never share with conservatives and yet too frequently do.

    We should promote the protection and access of abortion, and we shouldn’t shy away from our advocacy that we’re pro-abortion rights (I find the label ‘pro-choice’ to also be disingenuously misleading). It’s not a mutually exclusive position to advocate for significantly increased access to abortions while simultaneously striving to reduce the number of abortions. The facts are even on this side. If we’re not transparent that we’re pro-abortion rights as Rep. Davis does here, we’re effectively conceding the moral high ground to anti-abortion rights advocates. And that’s ground anti-abortion rights advocate have in no way earned, quite the opposite in fact.

  6. 6
    raven

    They aren’t pro-life.

    They are forced birthers and female slavers.

    and I’ll add here, anti-human.

    One of their current targets (besides the USA itself) is food stamps. They want to get rid of food stamps and have already made one significant cut.

    They say this is to encourage or force more people to go out and get jobs. Which ignores reality.

    1. The vast majority of people on food stamps are children, the disabled, and the elderly. Do they really expect little kids to go out and forage in the parks for food or get jobs in textile mills or auto factories?

    2. And speaking of those jobs, where are they? The US unemployment rate is still high at 7.3% and the actual rate is more like 15%. There are millions of people who have been desperately searching for jobs for years now. And millions more who work at minimum wage and part time jobs because that is all they can find.

  7. 7
    raven

    For fans of reality, here are the numbers. 76% of food stamp families include children, disabled or old. 41% of them have jobs.

    SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities – Feeding America
    feedingamerica. org/…/ supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-m…‎

    76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled … The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar …

    Hannity Omits The “Food Stamp” Facts: Most Recipients Have Jobs …
    mediamatters. org/research/2012/09/18/hannity…food-stamp…/189991‎

    Sep 18, 2012 – But most recipients of food stamps, or Supplemental Nutrition … USDA: In 2010, 41 Percent Of SNAP Participants Lived “In A Household With Earnings. … USDA: In 2010, Most SNAP Participants Were “Children Or Elderly.

  8. 8
    kacyray

    It’s because wingnuts don’t live in the real world. They live in a world that exists only in their mind, where everything is pure and the good guys wear white while he bad guys wear black.

  9. 9
    Raging Bee

    I’m appalled by some liberals who compare the unborn to a parasite to promote the unfettered exercise of abortion.

    How many liberals are you talking about here? Is it really a representative sample worth mentioning at all? Or is it mostly another boogeybitch constructed by the right based on only one or two actual people, like the Welfare Queen or the murderer getting weekend furloughs?

    But I’m also disgusted with abortion rights advocates who support abortion rights while denying or avoiding that their position promotes abortions…

    How can you possibly advocate for legalization of an action, or defend the people who do it, or tell people it’s sometimes the best option, without leaving yourself open to the charge that you’re “promoting” it? This is nothing but a vague, bogus catch-all charge that can be made without regard to what pro-choice advocates actually say. And besides, most people who advocate making abortion available, also support making birth-control and honest sex-ed available — which could then mean FEWER abortions. So how is that “promoting abortion?”

    I find the label ‘pro-choice’ to also be disingenuously misleading…

    Misleading how? Are you saying that people who want abortion to be available to women are not, in fact, advocating for more choices?

  10. 10
    Raging Bee

    The vast majority of people on food stamps are children, the disabled, and the elderly. Do they really expect little kids to go out and forage in the parks for food or get jobs in textile mills or auto factories?

    Yes, I think a lot of them expect exactly that. Newt Gingrich is famous for suggesting that schoolchildren (in public schools, mind you) do the custodians’ job to save tax money. And there’s always some halfwit prattling about how clever and ingenious people in favelas and slums can be so the desperately poor should never give up and always be on the lookout for helpful things they can do.

  11. 11
    Michael Heath

    Me earlier:

    I’m appalled by some liberals who compare the unborn to a parasite to promote the unfettered exercise of abortion.

    Raging Bee responds:

    How many liberals are you talking about here? Is it really a representative sample worth mentioning at all? Or is it mostly another boogeybitch constructed by the right based on only one or two actual people, like the Welfare Queen or the murderer getting weekend furloughs?

    I’m a little surprised you ask given you’re a regular here. All my observations of this argument come from comment posts here at Ed’s blog. I’ve never encountered such arguments elsewhere.

  12. 12
    raven

    And there’s always some halfwit prattling about how clever and ingenious people in favelas and slums can be so the desperately poor should never give up and always be on the lookout for helpful things they can do.

    Sure.

    Which usually involves a gun. In Mexico, their drug war has killed something like 30,000 people.

    If necessary, people will kill for food. If you reduce the social safety net, you aren’t going to save money. Chances are it will cost you in increased crime and reduced productivity as a population becomes less educated.

    Food stamps cost something like 1700 USD a year per person. Keeping someone in prison for a year runs 25,000 -50,000 USD.

  13. 13
    freehand

    Raven: If you reduce the social safety net, you aren’t going to save money.

    The financial elite, the 1% of the 1%, beg to differ. By having everybody desperate and starving, and by having everybody living on the edge, and bully policemen working for you, there are all sorts of ways in which to make money, gain power*, and best of all, sneer at the poors. As for little issues like global warming, well, their money can buy them safety. It’s worked so far, yes?

    * Billionaires in a land of millionaires of course have little power. But a millionaire in a land of paupers can have folks jailed, can own politicians, and dishonor the maid. What sociopath in his right mind would want a prosperous nation?

  14. 14
    Raging Bee

    All my observations of this argument come from comment posts here at Ed’s blog. I’ve never encountered such arguments elsewhere.

    In other words, just a handful of people making that argument once in a great while. Thanks for clearing that up. Care to move on to my other points that you haven’t touched yet?

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site