What difference does it make why she had her abortions? How is this anyone’s business but hers?
Plus, you have zero evidence she lied. You’re just talking trash on the internet, thinking you’ll make someone else look bad, only instead, you look like a moron.
Los Angeles, Texas only has a population of about 20, so I doubt they even have their own police department, let alone that Wendy Davis has ever committed a crime within their jurisdiction. And that’s the only place in Texas I could find with the initials L.A., so I’m not really sure what point you’re making here.
Wikipedia
Source: self-serving “memoir.”
Wendy Davis doesn’t need to be releasing a memoir. She has accomplished nothing.
Let’s say this is correct. Now what?
If she’s accomplished nothing, then why do you even care about her abortions?
You said she had the abortions before she had her daughters. What evidence do you have that her abortions occurred before her daughters were born?
Wikipedia agrees with iiandyiii.
If not for her political career she could be making kstarnes a sammich right this minute!
And the slack-jawed troll responds.
In some ways, I envy people whose lives are so empty of problems as to consider this an issue worth expending mental energy on. Then I remember that I have people who love me and who I love in return, and the envy vanishes.
Interesting that the OP hid those details and instead tried to use scare quotes around ‘medical’ to imply something more sinister, a typical scumbag tactic.
Well, we knew that already for other reasons. Given that, her fudging the facts about her background otherwise, and her filibuster in support of late-term abortions, it is, I suppose, reasonable to question whether or not she is fibbing about her abortions as well, but it won’t matter. The pro-abortion types will vote for her anyway and the antis won’t even if she is telling the truth about her abortions, which she might be doing.
Regards,
Shodan
Why would anybody care about this ridiculous non-issue?
Wendy Davis is running as the Democratic candidate for Governor of Texas, and thus her constituency is mostly the rational, responsible majority that consider the termination of pregnancy to be a private matter between a pregnant woman and her doctor (at least in the early stages of pregnancy).
Wendy Davis had the right to terminate any of her pregnancies in the first trimester for any reason she saw fit, whether it involved gynecological medical concerns, simply not wanting to be pregnant, alarm about an unfavorable horoscope, fetal developmental abnormalities, or any other damn thing in the world. And she doesn’t owe anybody who was not involved in that decision any explanation whatever about why she made that choice.
Let Republicans/conservatives apply their Talibanesque codes of demonizing and punishing female autonomy to their own female candidates, who have actually signed on in support of those codes. Democratic politicians haven’t endorsed any such horseshit, and if any fanatical Republicons like the OP try to pressure a Democratic candidate about why she had an abortion, she should just laugh right in their silly faces.
What gibbering idiocy is this? The actual rule is that no civilized person, male or female, asks about any details of the medical history of any other person, male or female, that are strictly a private and personal matter. Such as, for instance, an abortion. Being a “gentleman” or “lady” has nothing whatever to do with it.
Also, I can’t help noticing that you couldn’t even get your own distorted version of this rule to make any sense. If a gentleman isn’t supposed to ask about any woman’s abortion, whether or not she’s a lady, then the question of whether or not you consider Davis to be a lady has nothing to do with it. Dumbfuck.
Were these abortions performed in Kenya? Can we see the long form abortion certificate?
Wouldn’t her pants not being ablaze speak against your claim?
She got those abortions that piss you off so much. That’s pretty cool.
Post #7.
So…hang on, let me get this clear:
-This Wendy Davis person voluntarily tells people she’s had abortions. That part is believable, and prompts immediate conspiracy theories.
-But when she expands on that fact to explain when and how those abortions happened, somehow THAT information then becomes “self-serving” and not credible.
Both bits of information come from the same source: HER. How can you possibly justify believing one bit but not the other bit as anything other than personal prejudice? The ONLY reason you can have for not believing the second bit is because you don’t want it to be true.
And if she’s so “self-serving”, wouldn’t it have been smarter and easier to not talk about the abortions?
I’m so confused. It’s almost as if this chain of logic is tissue-paper thin and already starting to shred into tiny slivers of stupid.
Look! The slack-jawed troll has a cheerleader!
Nitpick: It should be spelled ABORTIONS or even ABORTIONS, although Strunk and White say that ABORTIONS** is also acceptable.
If she accomplished nothing that is only because the shitbag Texas state Republican Legislators changed the rules to suit their sneak-a-law game several times.