Forever Filibustering: Wendy Davis shows no substance
By: Daniel Clark
Not content with letting half a day’s worth of empty words fly across the floor of the Texas state senate, Wendy Davis responded to a critique from Gov. Rick Perry by going into a snit that showed as little substance as anything that’s ever been harrumphed in the halls of Congress.
Perry had observed that Davis was “the daughter of a single woman” and “she was a teenage mother herself.” He added, “It’s just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own example, that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters.”
Sen. Davis responded, “Today, Gov. Perry shamefully attacked me and my family.” At the risk of using one of the trillions of words that feminists have deemed offensive, this reaction of hers is hysterical. The bill would have prohibited abortions beyond 20 weeks, and imposed new health and safety regulations on abortion clinics. The only thing Perry said that was critical was that he thinks Davis is wrong on this issue. If that’s what she calls a shameful attack, then she’s in the wrong line of work.
“Rick Perry’s statement is without dignity and tarnishes the high office he holds,” she continued. “They are small words that reflect a dark and negative point of view.” How twisted must one’s mind be to perceive anything Perry said as dark and negative? “Every life must be given a chance?” The fiend!
If Davis really cared about dignity, she’d be ashamed to associate with Planned Parenthood. You know, those purveyors o’ dignity who hand out condoms disguised as smiley-faced lollipops, distribute pro-abortion Christmas cards, and put on parades featuring a mascot named Joe Sperm. That organization sent a mob of activists to the Texas senate chamber to disrupt the proceedings. Because they prevented a vote from taking place until after the midnight deadline had passed, Gov. Perry has ordered the legislature back for a special session to take up the bill again. What dignified tactic will Davis and friends use this time, a food fight?
Davis eventually had to yield the floor, but that doesn’t mean she stopped filibustering. When Perry tried to resume a discussion of the issue at hand, she shut down the debate with another onslaught of inanity. Then again, what else could she do, seriously make the argument that not every life matters? No, her cause is better served by mischaracterizing Perry’s words to make his “attack” the issue, instead of the horrifying truths about abortion and its practitioners.
This assault on Perry’s character is a tactic right out of the pro-abortion handbook. When confronted with reality, attack the messenger. Dismiss your adversary’s argument because he’s a man, or because she’s a Christian, or because nobody who hasn’t shared your experiences is deserving of an opinion. Declare all accurate terminology to be extreme and hateful, and start spouting geysers of euphemism instead. Take umbrage. Get shrill. Get angry. Get rude. Get silly. Lie. Do whatever is necessary to divert the discussion away from the killing of innocent unborn children.
As one would expect, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is an old pro at this. “Women are perfectly capable of deciding whether to choose adoption, end a pregnancy or raise a child,” she said, “and they don’t need Rick Perry’s help making that decision.” These perfectly capable women presumably do need Planned Parenthood’s help, however, and Richards’ “counselors” are not going to advise them that they may choose adoption or raising a child. They are only going to advise them to take the second option, that Richards is afraid to mention.
An abortion is not merely the end of a pregnancy. All pregnancies end, most of them with mother and child both returning home alive. Richards might as well have said that women are perfectly capable of deciding whether to end their marriages. Nobody would ever suspect that what she meant was that they ought to be free to kill their husbands.
In the legislature, a filibuster is a legitimate procedural maneuver, to be used when you can’t win the debate because you just haven’t got the votes. The reason for the never-ending filibuster employed by abortion advocates throughout the rest of society is not so innocent. Their efforts to shut down the larger public debate are driven by the realization that any forthright discussion of the issue is detrimental to their cause.
Or, to put it into what Davis might describe as “small words,” they know they’re wrong.
Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.