Wendy Davis Backs 20-Week Abortion Ban If Women Get 'Deference'

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

DANIEL STRAUSS – FEBRUARY 12, 2014, 1:06 PM EST

State Sen. Wendy Davis (D) said she would have supported a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy under certain conditions.

In an interview with the Dallas Morning News on Tuesday Davis, the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor, told the paper's editorial board that she "would line up with most people in Texas who would prefer that that’s not something that happens outside of those two arenas."

"My concern, even in the way the 20-week ban was written in this particular bill, was that it didn’t give enough deference between a woman and her doctor making this difficult decision, and instead tried to legislatively define what it was," Davis told the editorial board.

Prior for running for governor Davis skyrocketed to national attention for an 11-hour filibuster against an anti-abortion bill in the legislature that, among other things, included a 20-week abortion ban. Davis said that ban, which eventually became law, didn't allow enough options for each woman and her doctor.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wendy-davis-20-week-abortion-ban-support

[KamaAina]

1. She's walking it back?!

Without that filibuster, she's a member of the Lege from Fort Worth, not the leading Dem candidate for governor.

[okaawhatever]

6. The bill she filibustered was an omnibus bill that rewrote reproductive laws for Texas. The 20

week ban was a tiny part of it. One portion of the bill said that a woman taking the RU-486 pill had to do so in front of a Doctor. The Republicans claimed it was to "help with complications" despite testimony from physicians that Viagra has three times the complication rate of RU-486 and there was no such legislation for Viagra.
The 20 week ban has popular support when it allows for certain exceptions. Also, this wasn't Davis' first filibuster. Her first was over a massive cut to education.
The Republicans have tried to vilify her in the public eye. They named her "abortion Barbie" for her opposition to a bill that outlawed abortions over 20 weeks. Never mentioning the numerous changes the bill included. They did that to hurt her popularity. I think she's taking the topic to the public and letting the public know there was much more to this than just the twenty week issue. Her supporters already knew this, it's time for the independents and Republican women to learn the truth.

[adirondacker]

2. 1 step forward, 2 steps back. Seems to be a pattern in these times. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

30. "Centrism" rears its ugly head. Deep in the heart of Texass.

[cinnabonbon]

3. No, Wendy, no!

[Ash_F]

4. I think we should not jump all over her just yet.

Read the last part. Planned Parenthood is making a similar argument.

[mac56]

5. Yup. Read the whole article.

[LynneSin]

8. Not jump all over it - then it wouldn't be DU

just saying.

[HappyMe]

10. Yup. Read the WHOLE article.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

43. Agreed

[closeupready]

7. Huh? She doesn't strike me as all that smart.

Moving on...

[closeupready]

9. Hey, Wendy! How about supporting a woman's right to make medical

decisions for herself, in consultation with her physician, and y'all just stay the fuck out of it?

[Mojorabbit]

13. +100 nt

[DonViejo]

14. Did you even read the OP or, follow the link to the

full interview at the Dallas Morning News?

"My concern, even in the way the 20-week ban was written in this particular bill, was that it didn’t give enough deference between a woman and her doctor making this difficult decision, and instead tried to legislatively define what it was," Davis told the editorial board.

[Orsino]

17. I'm still not getting why there should be a 20-week ban at all.

[tkmorris]

18. In all seriousness, I ask

Where do you think the line should be?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

22. 216 months.

Give or take.

[Orsino]

23. If there has to be a line, let it be when a doctor certifies viability, or a good chance thereof.

But let's admit that we're talking about forcing a woman to give birth.

[tkmorris]

38. I do admit that

And furthermore I admit to a position that seems to be the one which is most at odds with those whom I otherwise am in almost complete agreement with: the far Left. To wit, I believe that if a fetus can reasonably be believed to be viable (let's say, a greater than 10% chance) then an elective abortion should no longer be allowed.

There has to be a line somewhere, or we have to say that elective abortions are just fine WHENEVER they are done, up until normal delivery. I don't agree that such should be the case, and so the above is where I feel the line should be.

Please note that this is only in the case of a "normal" pregnancy. If there are difficulties with the fetus, or dangers to the health of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest all bets are off.

It is interesting that most people I would call my peers politically know that a line must exist somewhere with regard to abortions, but refuse to take a position on where it should be. Note that in the 3 responses to my prior post I got one flippant response, one which seems reasonable but requires a doctor to "certify" viability (an impossibility), and yours which avoids the question utterly but wants me to admit to a distasteful reality. I so admit. I think that if a fetus is capable of life independent of the mother it should be protected, at least insofar as we do not allow it to be medically terminated without sufficient cause.

[Orsino]

39. Speaking of avoiding questions...

...how do we guard a fetus' life when viability is likely or imminent? To what lengths do we go to prevent a woman from terminating that pregnancy? Could this include preemptive imprisonment?

[DonViejo]

33. In all seriousness and honesty...

I have no right to establish a line; that decision is between a woman, her doctor and whomever else the woman chooses to bring into her decision making process. If she chooses to pray about the procedure, so be it.

[SharonAnn]

40. A government with the power to ban abortions, has the power to force them.

Just sayin'.

[DonViejo]

42. And what's that got to do with my response about where I would draw the line?

Just askin'.

[DonViejo]

19. I'm guessing if challenged in Court, the Tx law like a similar Az law,...

would be declared unconstitutional:

Court scuttles Arizona abortion restrictions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024325640

[arely staircase]

26. her position i the same as planned parenthood.

so hey, how about reading the whole article.

[DonViejo]

34. Thanks.

You're correct.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. No, they're incorrect - as I showed (nt)

[alp227]

11. Who are you trying to reason with, Wendy?

what i've learned in nearly 8 years of following american politics, you can't reason with the Talibornagain voters in America.

[arely staircase]

27. planned parenthood says the same thing as davis. are thy resoning with the Talibornagain?

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Planned Parenthood said nothing at all about 20 weeks being an acceptable limit

What they said was that Davis is a lot better than Abbott. What PP says is:

The 20-week ban is unconstitutional and a clear attempt to challenge Roe v. Wade at the expense of the health of our nation’s women.
...
Doctors oppose these laws because they prevent them from giving their patients the best health care possible in an individual situation. Medical organizations like the Physicians for Reproductive Health and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have condemned 20-week ban proposals.

While a majority of abortions in the U.S. occur in the first trimester, it is important that a woman, her family, and her doctor have every medical option available. Laws banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy would take that deeply personal decision away.

Unfortunately, we’ve already seen 20-week bans in some states. For those that that have passed laws like this, some women and their families have been put into unimaginable situations — needing to end a pregnancy for serious medical reasons but unable to do so. Politics has no place preventing doctors and other health professionals from informing patients about all their health care options, and doctors should not be criminalized for providing constitutionally protected care.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion-access/20-week-ban/

[DonViejo]

36. Wendy Davis knows this too...

The 20-week ban is unconstitutional and a clear attempt to challenge Roe v. Wade at the expense of the health of our nation’s women.

Ms Davis is practicing/playing politics. She's probably trying to publicly be unaware the law is unconstitutional, knowing full well the GOP onslaught against her, for any pro-choice position she takes, has yet to begin.

[brett_jv]

12. I don't have a big issue with bans after 20 weeks except in specific circumstances

Such as: proof that fetus has a serious abnormality that couldn't be detected prior, or if the woman's life/health is in jeopardy due to the pregnancy.

A law like that would be okay with me, quite frankly. 20 weeks is plenty of time to know you're preggo's and decide what you're going to do about it. It's also the point at which one begins to get into the territory where fetus could conceivably 'feel pain', so my intellectual 'argument' that I've always used to support choice in my own heart starts to go out the window at around 20 weeks anyways.

It also seems like a fair 'compromise' with the 'other side' that, if enacted at the federal level, might finally put this friggin' issue to 'bed' so we can move on as a Nation to much more important issues.

HOWEVER, without those kinds of exceptions carved out, esp. the one about the health/life of the mother, I couldn't support such a ban. I'd imagine that's what Wendy Davis was thinking as well.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. The survival rate of premature deliveries at 20 weeks?

Zero percent.

That increases to around 50% at 24 weeks, and 80-90% at 26 weeks. (The cutoff for termination in the UK is 24 weeks.)

And if you're not a woman and never going to have to make that decision for yourself? It doesn't really matter whether it would be okay with you or not; it doesn't affect you at all.

[TexasBushwhacker]

25. First they'll roll it back to 20, then 18, then 16, etc.

I just don't want to start sliding down that slope. Besides, only 1.5% of abortions are performed at 20 weeks or beyond. Unfortunately, some fetal anomalies just cannot be detected before then.

[JI7]

15. it's Texas and she wants to win

[kiranon]

20. Exactly. Believe she will make it between the patient and the doctor

by having enough wiggle room in the legislation to allow that to happen.

[freshwest]

21. Decision must be between a woman and her physician. Keep the state out of it.

That is not the only problem there, though. The attacks on Planned Parenthood, as the hatred of PP has been so well nurtured since the eighties that the repeated lis about it are regarded as facts.

The hatred in the state toward the ACA and Medicaid have created a zone of medical apartheid forcing women of lower income to die from cancer, miscarriages, denied birth control and needed medical care, reducing them to third world status in every aspect of their reproductive and economic lives. Their bodies are their prison, their lives defined from birth. .

Women with means, as they always have, can pay privately or travel for reproductive health services and abortion. They are not affected by these laws, only the poor and the lower middle class are.

Add to that the defunding of public education, denial of equal pay for women, and the fundamentalist and regressive (even if alternative political gorups) and women are not a equal in Texas as they were when I was involved in the political scene there.

Many stesp backward because of Raygun lovers. Preppers and survivalists, including the second amendment solution and tenther nutters, work to establish a might makes right society leads to people being cult followers to survive.

That is the future if Abbot gets in so I give Wendy a pass on all stances that seem to be too conservative to some. She will do the right thing by women and minorities in Texas.

[marble falls]

24. She's seriously running. She can win if she's serious, offers a believable alternative to General...

Abbott and can excite a big voter turnout, Texas could just start getting Bluer.

[CTyankee]

31. I think that is possible and I think she will!

This latest kerfuffle is much ado about nothing...

[blkmusclmachine]

29. And this is where Davis lost the election.

[marble falls]

32. Because General Abbott's psition on abortion is more reasnable? Anybody who doesn't vote ....

for Ms Davis over this one issue is being short sighted. General Abbott is a Teapublican - much more Tea than publican.

I finally think Davis has some kind of chance here in semi-rural Texas.

[yeoman6987]

44. I don't think people would vote for Abbott over Davis

I just think people may just not vote (if they really have an issue with this OP). I have no idea if Democratic Texans are really going to be upset by this.

[marble falls]

45. And that's the real problem. No Republican in an election with any kind of turnout won......

without Democrats voting for them as in Nixon and Reagan. When Republicans win in lower turnouts they win because Democrats didn't vote. Te GOP used to go out and try to turn Democrats their way. But they've discovered the most dependable way to win is to dampen turnout. By ridiculing government, Congress they draw cynicism towards Republican and Democrats. The effort to keep Dems from voting trough ID laws does this, too. This keeps Dems home and the GOP always turns out. If we want to vote out the Teapublicans and Teabillies we need to get the vote out. People identify as Democrats 3-2 to identifying Republican. There's no real reason the House being Red is a permanent condition.

[SnakeEyes]

35. Ugh this is maddening

Being on the right side of this issue is what got her attention in the first place.

Equally disappointing it to see the compromising in this thread with 20 week bans. Pro-choice means pro-choice. It's not "pro-choice but...". As soon as you put the but in there the consistency in position is destroyed. It's a woman's body and a woman's choice. Choice to end the pregnancy whenever she wants. Until it leaves her body, it's still her choice.

[Comrade Grumpy]

41. Texas ain't Berkeley. n/t