The right wing pundits poll asking if Wendy Davis stepped over the line with her wheel chair ad backfired. An overwhelming majority says no.
My observation (and this comes from someone who depended on a power chair for five of the past ten years) Abbot is a creep who gives folks in a wheelchair a bad rap. He got rich from a $10 million court settlement from lawsuit against the homeowner whose tree fell on him; then he set out to prevent others who are injured from getting even modest settlements to cover some of their medical and lost income. He has one standard for Abbot and the rest of the world are peasants who don't deserve a fair shot. He gives mobility impaired people a bad rap.
Maybe the tree injured his brain. I thought I'd read lots of stupid briefs but the one Abbott filed in the 5th Circuit Court of Texas this week against same sex marriages is the heights of stupid. He argues that same sex marriages will increase the number of out-of-wedlock births! Seems something collided with his brain and convinced him that if G/L adults are forbidden to marry each other they'll rush out and "procreate" with the opposite sex. Furthermore, he assumes that they'll all procreate outside of marriage. Gee. what a convoluted journey one can make through the thought processes of the man who thinks he should be Texas's next Governor. Even if folks disapprove of same-sex marriage they should be afraid of electing someone so incredibly stupid as Greg Abbott. His mental and moral state has nothing to do with being in a wheel chair. I know numerous sane and intelligent people who are mobility impaired. Greg Abbot fails to measure up to their standards.
When I saw the article on Abbott filing the brief on same-sex marriages causing more out-of-wedlock births I thought "Gee this must be an urban legend." I thought, even Abbott isn't that stupid. I knew he was cagey. I knew he was narcissistic I knew he was grossly unfair to most people except those who give him large campaign donations. I didn't think he was stupid. Now I know HE MUST BE GROSSLY STUPID.
It's no urban legend. Greg Abbott actually filed a brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Texas this week on behalf of Rick Perry and the State of Texas arguing that permitting same-sex marriages will increase the number of out-of-wedlock births!
Not only is it a STUPID ARGUMENT, he goes farther and weakens his already implausible argument by pointing out that fertility is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage. He argues that same-sex marriage prevents the economic growth of the state because same sex couples can't procreate. (I'm relieved that he gets at least that much of basic "birds and bees 101!") However, with modern fertility there are "work arounds" for same-sex couples who are determined to become parents.
This is the man who campaigns on how pro-education he is yet is being sued by almost every school district in Texas! This is the man who sued Oklahoma trying to force them to give Texas their water. This is the man who has sued the federal government over 27 times since President Obama took office, spending in excess of $2.8 million in taxpayer money on these cases, according to the Associated Press. He's wasted over $2.8 million dollars and claims to be a fiscal conservative!
Forrest Wilder chronicled Abbot's costly to taxpayer's litigation in an article inThe Texas Observer in September 2012. He'd already filed 27 lawsuits against the Obama administration and three against the Bush administration, He'd only won 5, lost 8, two were dismissed "because the regulations or laws being challenged were lifted or repealed by Congress. " and 12 were pending.
Abbott repeatedly fought the Federal Government claiming that Texas does not have to comply with the ADA. Christy Hoppe of the Austin Bureau of The Dallas Morning News in a Feb. 2014 article identified at least nine ADA cases in which Abbott argued that "the state has claimed sovereign immunity in federal court and lost."
FAILING TO LEARN FROM REPEATED FAILURE:
Some define expecting a different outcome from the same actions as stupidity. At the very least, it is futility. Abbott indulges in filing cases (at taxpayer's expense) with the same argument which have been ruled against in previous court cases.
Christy Hoppe of the Dallas Morning News mentioned a few of them:
AT A GLANCE: Some cases
During Greg Abbott’s tenure as attorney general, his office has fought lawsuits that disabled people have brought against state agencies. In numerous instances, the attorney general has made sovereign immunity claims — that states are shielded from these suits under the 11th Amendment. The state has lost on that argument repeatedly but has continued to push such claims. A sampling of cases:
McCarthy vs. Hawkins
Details: In September 2002, the state was sued on behalf of 25,000 disabled Texans stuck on years-long waiting lists to obtain community-based services. The suit contended the state was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide appropriate accommodations.
Abbott’s argument: The state is immune from lawsuits brought under the ADA.
Ruling: In September 2004, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said state officials are liable and do not have immunity from lawsuits brought under the ADA. Two years later, the state settled the suit with a pledge to greatly increase Medicaid-funded services in the community over the next six years.
Miller vs. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
Details: As part of a larger case, a legally blind Texas Tech professor accused the university in 2000 of failing to accommodate her by, among other issues, denying her voice-recognition software for her computer and declining to place reflective tape on the stairs leading to her office.
Abbott’s argument: The state is immune from such lawsuits.
Ruling: The issue of sovereign immunity from the disability law went to the 5th Circuit, which ruled against the state in August 2005. “If the involved state agency or department accepts federal financial assistance, it waives” sovereign immunity, the court said. At the subsequent trial, a jury found the university discriminated against the professor based on her gender but not her disability.
Meyers ex rel. Benzing vs. Texas
Details: Disabled drivers filed a class action suit in 1997 arguing that Texas was violating the ADA by charging fees for handicapped parking placards.
Abbott’s argument: A state judge rejected sovereign immunity arguments, and the state sought to have the case moved to federal courts, making a sovereign immunity claim again.
Ruling: The 5th Circuit called the state’s argument “novel” but pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that found once a state asks for and is granted federal court jurisdiction, it has waived sovereign immunity. In 2009, the state settled the lawsuit, agreeing to pay $24 million, including refunds for the placard fees.
Espinoza vs. Texas Department of Public Safety
Details: A woman who used crutches or a motorized scooter after contracting rheumatoid arthritis as a child went to renew her driver’s license in 2000, after 17 years of driving without incident. Because of her mobility issues, DPS declared her a potentially dangerous driver and required that she would have to take the driving test again.
Abbott’s argument: Sovereign immunity should prevent a suit.
Ruling: The 5th Circuit denied immunity in August 2005. The case proceeded to trial, and the state won.
Durrenberger vs. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Details: Jeremy Durrenberger, whose hearing is impaired, tried repeatedly to visit his inmate friend in Hughes prison unit. The visiting room had glass dividers, and Durrenberger was supposed to use a phone system to communicate with his friend. He asked for a voice amplifier to be installed on the phone used by visitors so he could hear. The department said it could not afford the devices, estimated to cost between $15 and $100 each, throughout the prison system.
Abbott’s argument: The case should be dismissed based on sovereign immunity.
Ruling: A federal judge granted Durrenberger summary judgment in December 2010, with further hearings ordered on lawyers’ fees and damages.
Little vs. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Details: Evelyn Little, who had her left leg amputated at the knee, used a prosthetic and was able to complete long work shifts. She had worked as a food manager at nationally recognized restaurants. She applied for state jobs as a food manager on more than 14 occasions between 1995 and 1999 but was never hired. She sued for employment discrimination.
Abbott’s argument: Little was not disabled because the prosthesis solved her disability.
Ruling: The Texas Supreme Court found in October 2004 that she was disabled and ordered a trial on the merits. A jury found that issues other than Little’s disability led to her not being hired.
Abbott's push for Texas' restrictive enforcement of Voter ID regulations has led to a court review which ruled this month that Texas' Voter ID Law is unconstitutional.
He has some skilled advertising consultants during this campaign cycle. They make him appear pleasant. If one does not know his history, has not followed his fingerprints on the Texas Cancer Research Institute and other fiscal scandals and his assault on disabled Texans, his defending massive cuts to public education, one would leave with the impression that he's a very different person than his actions over the past couple of decades reveal him to be. His ads definitely display him in a much kinder light than the actions of his heart toward fellow Texans.
Wendy Davis' wheel chair ad could never put him in worse light than his black selfish heart paints him. I'd have sympathy for the man injured and confined to a wheelchair if he didn't work so hard at pushing every other injured Texan down on the ground and stomping on them.
I live in a city that has telephone poles in the middle of the sidewalks on almost every street. Curb cuts are dangerous and make it much more frightening to try to maneuver out-of-doors than it should be. If you have never encountered these barriers, there is a degree of understanding for failure to champion constructive change. When you KNOW the reality and still fight against improvements which allow fellow citizens to function more fully in society, there is no excuse.
Perry Dorrell (P Diddle) in "Brains and Eggs" frequently indulges in dark humor regarding Abbott. If he were writing about someone other than Abbott, I'd find his comments inappropriate and offensive. Such comments about Abbott are satire about an individual who is grossly inappropriate in his actions toward large segments of the citizenry of this state.
Wendy Davis and her advertising team could never do as much harm to Greg Abbott as his character has already done to his public image. HIs mobility impairment is the least of his handicaps. He is more greatly handicapped by his character flaws.
Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 6:42 AM PT: Abbott screaming attack on a guy in a wheel chair has brought more attention to the ad. When people watch it over 75% polled say it was not over the line. Many who missed it, now know more about how he has failed to give injured Texans a fair shot at integrating fully into our society. He supports barriers and opposes the United States Constitution on ADA.
Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 6:56 AM PT: My mom taught me not to call people stupid no matter how dumb they were. However, I suspect that this time reading what Greg Abbott says and watching what he's done in office, she'd probably scrunch up her brows because her daughter was ignoring what she taught me about good Southern manners, but would give me a pass on this one.
Tue Oct 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM PT: Senator Davis didn't tell her story during the filibuster because she said she didn't want her story to distract from others' stories. I find it sad that she's been able to keep these tragic hours private for years, but the rhetoric of this race probably prompted her to bring it out.
When writing her book, she examined a very personal part of her life and probably acknowledged that it is an important part of her life experience. She may have been the champion of women's health care and reproductive freedom of choice even if she had not experienced what she has, but her personal experience definitely equips her to stand up for others.
I think it is important for people, especially those who are pro-life, to understand that narrow definitions of pro-life is actually legislating the murder of some women. I am a former Anglican Franciscan Oblate Sister -- and was part of the most conservative order in the Episcopal Church. Many of my associates and former members of the Order are staunch Pro-Life. Decisions had to be made regarding whether to choose only "pre-birth" or the totality of life for activism and service. Many of us decided that we could not be pro-life and legislate the death of anybody. It is not pro-life to force a choice that sacrifices the mother to save the unborn child. Those choices are not for clergy or politicians to make.
If Senator Davis had been admitted to some religious hospitals, the policy at those hospitals would have restricted necessary procedures to save her life because the life of the mother is sacrificed through the policies of those hospitals if it will endanger the unborn. This is, in my opinion, grossly wrong. I think in our public discourse we need to examine those policies and if there is any governmental funding to those institutions, the life of the mother must be given at least equal importance as that of the unborn.
I am especially appalled by legislators who cut food stamps and school lunch programs, meals on wheels, Chips and health care for the indigent and middle class while imposing strict anti-contraceptive and abortion laws on the public, and do it while waving a PRO LIFE banner. They are absolutely not pro-life.
There are some people who actually do have a sincere pro life viewpoint.We are a diverse nation. People are allowed to have different viewpoints. We should not be allowed to impose them on others. Most who claim to DON'T. There is nothing Christian about calling a woman "abortion barbie." There is absolutely nothing humane or decent about flinging such a label at a woman who experienced a tubal pregnancy or had to terminate a muchly wanted child which had such a severe neurological abnormality that there was no possibility of even a very limited life.
I admire Senator Davis for sharing her painful realities with those who have trouble accepting abortion because her story helps some who have very strict views to understand some of the misconceptions about medical realities and some of the reasons why politicians should not legislate the personal reproductive and health care decisions of citizens.
Also, every person who is on the fence and hesitant to vote Democratic because of their misunderstanding why she had to terminate those pregnancies, who learns to understand the woman better who seeks to be our next governor, helps all Texans. We cannot afford 4 years of Greg Abbott in the Governor's Office. The people of this state deserve better. We deserve much better. Wendy Davis is much much much much much better than Greg Abbott.
If it takes her explaining herself to those who have been taught that abortion is a black and white always wrong thing, then I am very appreciative of her being willing to communication with Texans so that they can better understand that what they think they are for, is not what the current Law in Texas is delivering. It is important that every woman and every human being who loves any daughter or sister or wife or female friend understands that too strict a prohibition on abortion, especially the way the Texas law is crafted, prohibits termination of pregnancies which medical science has proven result in the death of the mother. Is this really the decision you want MADE for you or your daughter or your wife or your mother?