- - Friday, February 28, 2014

Since the announcement of her gubernatorial bid last October, Texas Democrat Wendy Davis has seemed to enmesh herself in a new controversy every week. From the dubiously related details of her personal life to her series of flip-flops on a pet issue, Ms. Davis continues to snag headlines among media outlets all along the political spectrum — even to the point of a 7,700-word cover story in The New York Times Magazine.

It’s not The New York Times cover story to which the American people — and Texas voters in particular — should turn. Nor is the important issue here the year when Ms. Davis got divorced or how long she lived in a trailer. These points, and the media frenzy surrounding them, only distract from the fundamental omission about her background.

It comes from June 25, 2013, the day of her infamous filibuster against Texas’ HB2, “relating to the regulation of abortion procedures, providers, and facilities.” It centers on the position that made Ms. Davis famous that day — a position she would subsequently distance herself from, only to embrace it again not even three days later.

Here is what the mainstream media, the Democratic Party and the rest of Ms. Davis‘ supporters truly are desperate not to talk about: When Ms. Davis donned her pink shoes, she “stood” not just against five-month babies in the womb, but also against their mothers. What our media uncuriously call merely “anti-abortion legislation” or “an abortion bill” demanded protections for women that every feminist organization should have been demanding long before the first word of HB2 was put to paper.

It is true that no matter how many “protections” one puts in place to try to sanitize an abortion facility, the abortion process itself remains a barbaric act against a child and against a woman. Nevertheless, requiring abortionists to have hospital-admitting privileges does protect women. Exacting sanitation and safety standards protect women. As much as some pro-abortion activists protest, regulating the width of doorways and hallways also protects women. Karnamaya Mongar could testify to this last point, had she not died in Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortion center thanks to the inability of emergency medical technicians to negotiate the House of Horrors’ halls.

Media outlets sympathetic to Ms. Davis now avoid her abortion advocacy as one might avoid the many diseases inhabiting Planned Parenthood of Delaware’s “meat market.” Where are the self-professed feminists? Shouldn’t they be ringing alarm bells about this woman, who has twice proven herself dedicated to opposing a law that protects women? Shouldn’t media outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times, which pride themselves on their investigative prowess, be asking why Texas Democrats’ gubernatorial candidate filibustered against legislation that would have curtailed Kermit Gosnell’s barbaric practice of telling women to “stop being a baby”? Or Delaware abortionist Timothy Liveright’s disturbing habit of slapping, pinching and “play[ing] peek-a-boo” with mothers enduring abortions?

Abortion is not just a death sentence for babies in the womb. It also causes tremendous harm to women. Regulating it, while insufficient, is the very least a politician — especially one belonging to the party that spends so much energy decrying the other party’s purported “war on women” — could do to show that she “cares.” In the midst of all the speculation about divorces, child abandonment and unmitigated ambition, far too many have forgotten what Ms. Davis‘ concrete actions as a politician entail for America’s women.

We can’t truly understand the destructive nature of Ms. Davis‘ mindset, and that of the abortion-centered corporations and special interests who back her, without a look into exactly what the Texas state senator “stood” against during her filibuster. Her cheerleaders in the mainstream media don’t want us to understand it.

As Ms. Davis‘ supporters in the state capital remind us, the devil is in the details. It is crucial for us to be familiar with those details.

In short, Ms. Davis, a politician so staunchly pro-abortion as to become an emblem for the most fringe elements of the movement, spoke for 11 hours in favor of a human-rights abuses that most Americans, and especially most women, oppose. She battled against a bill that defends mothers from predatory abortionists and health-hazardous practices, and billed herself as a champion of women while doing it.

Wendy Davis showed her true colors last June. Her supporters did, too. No matter how much buzz we hear about Ms. Davis‘ personal life nor how much rhetorical artistry we hear, we must not let those colors wash away.

Lila Rose is the president and founder of Live Action.