Op-ed pick: Wendy Davis shouldn’t be sainted for her filibuster

Democratic State Sen. Wendy Davis’ filibuster at the Texas State House got a lot of attention. She was on the Sunday morning shows. Her unflattering high school yearbook photo surfaced. And she’s been mentioned as a potential candidate for the Texas governor’s race.

But Kathleen Parker writes in The Washington Post that the media is forgetting what the filibuster was really about: abortion:

No adult needs a primer on the politics of abortion. Part of what makes this issue so difficult is that both sides are, in principle, correct. Anti-abortion folks see it as a human rights issue. Given that human life is a continuum that begins at conception, there can be no compromise.

Pro-abortion rights folks see any limitation on abortion as an infringement on a woman’s right to control her own body. In their view, the baby isn’t a baby with human rights until it leaves the mother’s body, thereby becoming autonomous if lacking in self-sufficiency.

Read all of Parker’s argument about how the media should be fostering a serious discussion about abortion rather than “gushing like breathless red-carpet commentators” over Davis’ rosy footwear.

  • Diane

    Was it just about abortion or about a first step toward energizing opposition to a conservative political system in Texas that stays in power because of gerrymandering and lack of political evolvement of the Hispanic part of the population. With all the interest in the physical aspects of her filibuster, the media might encourage a discussion on whether in the US senate the requirement of in person filibuster might alleviate the 2/3 requirement, we now have.

  • Val

    Many opponents of abortion are not heralds for human rights. If that was the case they would be also opposed to the death penalty and in favor of increasing social services.