Shock: Wendy Davis had a late-term abortion
Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, who became a national political sensation by filibustering her state’s tough new restrictions on abortion, discloses in her upcoming memoir that she had an abortion in the 1990s after discovering that the fetus had a severe brain abnormality.
In Forgetting to be Afraid, Davis also writes about ending an earlier ectopic pregnancy, in which an embryo implants outside the uterus….
The second pregnancy happened in 1996. Davis writes that during her second trimester she took a blood test that could determine chromosomal or neural defects, which doctors first told her didn’t warrant concern. But a later exam revealed that the brain of the fetus had developed in complete separation on the right and left sides, Davis says. She sought opinions from multiple doctors, who told her the baby would be deaf, blind and in a permanent vegetative state if she survived delivery, she writes.
“I could feel her little body tremble violently, as if someone were applying an electric shock to her, and I knew then what I needed to do,” Davis writes. “She was suffering.”
She goes on to say that an “indescribable blackness followed” the pregnancy and that the loss left her forever changed.
The ectopic pregnancy happened in 1994, and terminating it was considered medically necessary, Davis writes.
~ Associated Press via The Blaze, September 6

Now let’s just hope that her political opponents are smart enough to not touch this in any way.No good can come up from attacking a woman who had two hard case abortions, and her policies alone are enough reason to not vote for her.
Deaf, dumb, and blind? Like mother, like child?
This explains the advocacy. Unfortunately, and seemingly very recently, our culture has taken a very ugly turn when it comes to disabilities, to the point where people would be unwilling to even give a child a chance to live. I think as a society we’ve already accepted the premise of life unworthy of life, and talk about killing a person for their “benefit.” I saw an awesome article on that topic today: http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/08/not-just-the-pretty-babies/
Disability does NOT justify killing a child. I wonder if the parents of Helen Keller would have been told THEIR daughter would be blind AND deaf, if they would have killed HER?
If they had been told the baby would be born without a hand or with a club foot, would that have justified killing? What would happen if the baby had been normal, but lost a hand in an accident? would that justify killing the child later on?
Disability does NOT justify killing.
Shouldn’t the ectopic preganancy be considered a miscarriage since the pregnancy had no way of surviving in the Fallopian tube? I object to that being called an abortion. Flushing the baby out was necessary and if by some miracle it could implant in the uterine
wall and thrive it would be saved but I imagine that is rare. Pls enlighten me here.
On the second abortion experience she talks about…I have to wonder if it is true. Sorry but I doubt her on this. And if so, is she exaggerating it for effect. Did the doctor really tell her that would be the outcome. Did she get a second opinion. I really think this is being ginned up to get out the woman vote. Sorry I just don’t believe her.
This is a good move for her. She is running against a guy who is in a wheelchair, and so far she has really just looked like a cold-hearted opportunist – due to the reality of her leaving her children geographically to complete law school, then divorcing the guy, soon after graduation, who was “helping” her raise them.
She has been doing the talk-show circuit, incl one of those morning shows this morn.
It is possible her hard-luck childhood could come across as explaining her being a cold-hearted opportunist scrapping ruthlessly for what she can get in this dog-eat-dog world, rather than being an admirable person who has overcome great odds and misfortune to be a success story.
On the talk show, she acknowledged her faith in God. So now she has opened up that can of worms. She will have to explain her opinion that open-carry is OK, that she might support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, and she will have to finesse the attempt to appear to be a believer in God in a state where this means you acknowledge Jesus as God and the son of God. We’ll see how this goes.
The media continue to say she rose to prominence upon her wildly successful filibuster.
The truth was that her filibuster failed. Following their rules, the Texas legislature had somehow ceased her time, and was moving to vote on the abortion-restriction bill. This would have happened in the final 15 minutes of that session.
Instead of the bill being voted into law (as it eventually was in the next special session), a mob interfered with the legitimate functioning of government for those 15 minutes – they were so loud that the regular legislative process could not be carried out.
We liberals have honored this event as some great thing. “The People Have Spoken” and all of that.
The truth is that a mob took over a state’s legislative session and blocked their legitimate business.
I had read about this so I knew.
Glad my mother wasn’t Wendy Davis. As I’ve posted here before, my mother’s doctor recommended abortion because of Rh-induced hemolytic anemia of her fetus, which he said would result in a vegetable baby being born. Fortunately my mother found a different doctor, and I was able to be born.
Eric, you’re the most talkative veggie I’ve ever met.
Whatever, Wendy. You’re going to lose anyway.
Lol phillymiss, my parents would agree … they could never get me to shut up as a kid.
Phillymiss she already has lost after her abortion. Glad youre here Eric!
Thanks heather, I’m Blessed to have the pro-life parents I have.
Wow! She obviously faced tough decisions. But, ending a life of a child that may or may not have been deaf & blind seems too harsh a choice. Let’s thank GOD that Helen Keller’s mother did not follow this example. I work with adults with profound developmental disabilities, what is termed here “vegetative” (I hate that phrase BTW!) & these wonderful people bring such joy & completeness to my day. I thank GID that their mothers did not chose abortion & I pray every day that elective abortion end in our time… Peace to you all!
“I could feel her little body tremble violently, as if someone were applying an electric shock to her, and I knew then what I needed to do,” Davis writes. “She was suffering.”
My epileptic cat trembles violently when he has a seizure. He appears to be suffering but since he can’t talk we don’t really know if he is or not. Later, he is back to his friendly, playful self. We give him pills twice a day to keep him alive.
My children have trembled violently after swimming; they were suffering from the cold water. Probably should have offed them.
Dear Jesus, help us.
Liz from Nebraska…i WAS JUST wondering what ever happened to you and here you are!!!!! Its been over a year since ive seen you. I always remember your closing line….we are turning into Nazi Germany. How sad but true.
Wendy and her children suffered an ectopic pregnancy and a seemingly tragic pre-natal diagnosis. These are honest tragedies. Every mother fears such things, and many suffer them.
But immediately after that, Wendy made a cascade of bad decisions. Her first thought for her child after the difficult diagnosis was abortion. Then she did it. Then she put on the pink shoes and filly-bustered for late term abortion-on-demand.
This crassly timed revelation causes many mothers and pro-lifers to feel some sympathy for Abortion Barbie. But she made her own choices and earned her epithet, and she has not repented yet.
“Wendy made a cascade of bad decisions.” – making decisions different to what you might does not render them ‘bad’.
“Her first thought for her child after the difficult diagnosis was abortion.” – not from what is written above.
“Then she did it. Then she put on the pink shoes and filly-bustered for late term abortion-on-demand.” – obviously with good reason.
“she made her own choices and earned her epithet, and she has not repented yet.” – she has nothing to repent.
“This crassly timed revelation causes many mothers and pro-lifers to feel some sympathy for Abortion Barbie.”
I have a real hard time feeling sympathy for someone who kills/pushes the killing of humans with brain damage. Heck, Abortion Barbie is brain damaged but I don’t think she should have been killed in the womb.
There is nothing at all which suggests that the lady is brain damaged in any way.
There is nothing at all that suggests missy windy is telling the truth.
.
windy Davis claimed, “By the time I was 19, I was already on my way to a divorce, living in a tiny trailer with my daughter.” Wayne Slater, reporting for the Dallas Morning News noted that she was 21, not 19, when she divorced and lived in a trailer for “only a few months.”
She married her second husband Jeff Davis and had a second daughter. Her husband paid for her final two years at Texas Christian University. When she was accepted to Harvard, Jeff Davis cashed in his 401(k) account and eventually took out a loan to pay for her final year there. “I was making really good money then, well over six figures,” he said. The daughters — Amber was 8, and Dru was 2 — remained with the husband in Fort Worth, Texas, while Wendy Davis went to Boston for three years.
The worst part of the Slater story? The marriage came apart right around the time the final payment on her Harvard Law School loan was due.
.
“It was ironic,” he said. “I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.”
.
The husband won custody of Dru, the daughter they had together. He even secured a restraining order against her.
.
Now that is the true face of democRAT feminism. A conniving shrew pimping out her dead child as a political prop in a transparent attempt to sanctify her own complicity in the babies murder.
.
Now that is cold blooded.
Real-stupid-ity says: September 8, 2014 at 9:50 pm
.
“There is nothing at all which suggests that the lady is brain damaged in any way.”
=========================================================================
There is nothing to suggest that windy is a lady.
.
There is everything to suggest that windy is every bit as truth challenged as you are.
“By the time I was 19, I was already on my way to a divorce, living in a tiny trailer with my daughter.” Wayne Slater, reporting for the Dallas Morning News noted that she was 21, not 19, when she divorced and lived in a trailer for “only a few months.” – she said she was ‘on the way’ to a divorce at 19. It eventuated when she was 21. No misrepresentation of the situation there then. So how long does someone have to live in a trailer before you’ll officially acknowledge that they have ‘lived in a trailer’?
On what basis do you choose to accept what her ex-husband says rather than what she says? Because it suits your derogatory narrative better?
“Conniving shrew”? Honest about her life is what I’d call it. You all wonder why she filibustered. Now she tells why and you don’t like it. Poor you. No murder took place. Forcing someone to carry and deliver an unwanted pregnancy, especially an unviable one – now that is cold blooded.
“There is nothing to suggest that windy is a lady.” – nor you a gentleman.
“There is everything to suggest that windy is every bit as truth challenged as you are.” – that would be not at all then.
Hi Ken,
You bring up great points.
Let’s see, a “feminist” that knows the right man to latch on to.
Her two daughters, one of whom isn’t even his, are raised by this man. He even won custody of their daughter together. Wouldn’t she want to inspire her daughters to be feminists?
She has two more pregnancies when she doesn’t even take care of the children she already has? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Sounds like Wendy was a pretty face who knew how to play a guy for a sap. Story as old as the human race.
“You bring up great points.” – with nothing but conjecture, propaganda and dislike to support them.
‘Sounds like….’ how you like it to sound.
Reality,
Then I assume you have sources that dispute her ex husband and his account, and can prove he did not win custody and there was never a restraining order.
I don’t dispute that he won custody or obtained a restraining order. What I questioned was statements such as “It was ironic…..I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.” being accepted as cause and effect, or relevant; and the use of such statements to form a position and make derogatory claims about her. Especially in light of ken finding her claim to be ‘on the way’ to divorce at 19 and it being finalized at 21 to be contradictory, which it isn’t. Snippets of truth and a whole lot of speculation and opinion is being used to say things about her which either aren’t, or may well not be, true.
Chris, Awesome article at 11:56 a.m.
Reality,
You claim the points raised in Ken’s article have “nothing but conjecture, propaganda, and dislike to support them”.
Are you saying that for the most part this article is a lot of misinformation that can’t be substantiated?
OK, then I don’t think its unreasonable to expect you to give us a source to back up your claim. Ken named his source, let’s see yours.
“You claim the points raised in Ken’s article have “nothing but conjecture, propaganda, and dislike to support them”. – indeed.
“Are you saying that for the most part this article is a lot of misinformation that can’t be substantiated?” – which ‘article’ are you referring to? The actual article on whose thread we are making comments or ken’s comment? I don’t see any ‘article’ by ken.
The only source ken named is a journalist who said that Wendy’s divorce wasn’t finalised until she was 21 and that she hadn’t lived in a trailer for ever and ever. Neither of which contradicted what Wendy said – yet ken tried to make it seem so. The way ken used his own source proves my point. Now can you understand why I keep questioning the repeated use of tattle and innuendo just so people can feel justified in saying nasty things about her?
We know that Wendy is truth-challenged. The Dallas newspaper exposed a number of her campaign falsehoods. Not just the usual puffery and policy disputes — they were outright lies, contrary to facts, about her personal history.
I am all for keeping a politician’s private life private…. but if she meant to disclose her personal history, she ought to tell us the truth.
This new reveal is probably true. I suppose we should trust her until some journalist digs to verify her stories.
But this likely won’t change anything. We now have some information as to why she behaved as she did and holds policies that we oppose. Bad decisions lead to more bad decisions.
Reality,
Please dispense with the blather and give me a source to back up your post of 10:52PM where you claim the points raised in the article posted by Ken are nothing but “conjecture, propaganda, and dislike to support them”.
I should correct my post. It should read:
“…the points raised in the article posted by Ken have “nothing but conjecture, propaganda, and dislike to support them”
Let me know when ken provides a valid source for the comments he initially made. That’s the source of the ‘blather’.
LOLL Reality,
I see you have no source. Thank you.
LOL, I’m not the one who made claims about Wendy. Ken did, without any source – apart from what the journalist said, which did not contradict what Wendy had said despite what ken was trying to allude. Let me know when you’ve got something real.
Reality,
I know you don’t have a source. There’s really no need to drag this out.
What do I need a source for? I’m not the one who made all sorts of spurious and ludicrous claims about Wendy. I questioned the claims and no sources have been provided – now you demand I provide them! That’s a heather modus operandi.
I know you folk don’t like Wendy but all I’ve seen here is a slew of baseless nastiness towards her. Great for preaching to the choir, a wasted effort for anyone else. So you can show some sources to back the denigrations above or drag this on as long as you wish, reinforcing the utter lack of substance to the claims made about Wendy.
Well gee Reality,
According to your 11:06PM post, you didn’t dispute much of what you now refer to as “spurious and ludicrous claims about Wendy”.
Reality: “I don’t dispute that he won custody or obtained a restraining order…”
So some of the article is accurate? It not all “conjecture” and “propaganda” as you claimed?
I didn’t refer to the article in those terms, I was referring to ken’s claims. I’ve already said such. Would you like a larger shovel? Might that help you, or ken, locate any sources for his claims?
Reality,
Ken didn’t “claim” anything. He quoted from the article and named the reporter. I specifically said “Ken’s article” in my 11:28PM post.
There was never any question as to the topic under discussion.
Ken made a number of claims. The only one of these he cited a source for was in his failed attempt to establish a contradiction between what Wendy had said and what the reporter claimed. Nothing else came with anything like a ‘source’ apart from her ex’s statement of having apparently found the timing ironic, which proves nothing at all.
Check again Reality,
This was an article was written by Slater and Ken references him.
Now you don’t challenge that the husband won custody and obtained a restraining order. Yet according to you, that isn’t specifically referenced by Ken as Slater being the source. So it must be just Ken making the claim…and oddly, you agree with it.
You’d better check again. Apart from ken’s failed attempt to present a contradiction, all Slater’s article did was provide some quotes from Wendy’s ex. And that would be proof of anything how exactly?
I didn’t say I agreed re custody and the restraining order, I said I don’t dispute it. This is because those particular aspects would be either entirely factual or not. I gave ken credit that he wouldn’t misrepresent such an easily verified point.
I love it when you get like this.
Reality
This is too much fun.
You don’t dispute those points but you don’t agree with them either? OK, so did her husband win custody and obtain a restraining order or didn’t he? Yet according to you these are only Ken’s “claims”, and you insist on a source other than Ken. Oh you assumed Ken wouldn’t “misrepresent” i.e. lie about this.
Reality, you would have been better off just admitting you didn’t have a source to contradict Ken’s post. It would have made a lot more sense than what you are making now.
Dunno, haven’t checked. Like I said, I gave ken credit for not being as bad as some.
Wouldn’t you be better off just admitting that ken hasn’t a source for anything evidential other than his failure to claim a contradiction in Wendy’s story?
Woof woof! :-)
Reality,
You give Ken “credit”. Yeah, and I’ve got some great ocean front property in Montana.
I’d be better off just admitting that Ken hasn’t a source for anything evidential…but didn’t you argue that Ken wouldn’t misrepresent what is easily verified? Why should I expect Ken to have a source if even you don’t think its necessary?
Great try Reality. Next time just acknowledge you can’t provide a source.
Tis a shame you place so little trust in ken. I know he says some strange and outlandish things at times but he’s not such a clearly blatant liar.
The custody and restraining order are the only totally verifiable claims amongst those ken made. The others weren’t.
Try harder Mary. Next time just acknowledge it isn’t I who needed to provide a source.
Reality,
I’m sure Ken will be both surprised and pleased to know that his word alone will always be good enough for you. BTW, I may not always agree with Ken, but I’ve never considered him a liar.
I don’t have to try at all Reality. Especially when you make it not only easy, but a great deal of fun as well.
Did I or did I not describe the instances in which I am prepared to give ken credit? Did you or did you not understand that? Do you or do you not have the ability to comprehend the differentiation?
“I don’t have to try at all Reality.” – this is another of the situations where it is quite obvious that you haven’t. Never mind.
“Especially when you make it not only easy” – heh heh. Yes, it hasn’t been difficult. woof woof :-)
“but a great deal of fun as well.” – oh well, at least you gain enjoyment from it too. That’s something for you I suppose.
LOL,
Woof woof? Good grief Reality roll over and let someone scratch your stomach.
ZZOOOOOOMM!!!!!!!!!! That was the sound of the point flying over your head. Again.
Yeah, and hitting you right in the fanny.
Gee Mary, first you want to do something nice then you want to abuse me. What gives? Are you Libran?
Close, a Virgo.
Ah, that explains things even more ;-)
Definitely for the positive.
Ah, the ethereal element of the Virgo emerges. Yes, it is a positive to have a clearer picture.
Reality,
I’m not at all surprised you read the stars.
It’s tripe. Where we are born and our place amongst our siblings may influence what we become as people. Astrology is bunkum. Facts, reasoning and evidence help prevent us from being naďve slaves to dogma.
Facts, reason and evidence are of no benefit to those who ignore them when the facts, reason and evidence jeopardize the bliss of their willful ignorance.