The day the world stood with Wendy

Long stand: Wendy Davis was not allowed to sit or lean.

Long stand: Wendy Davis was not allowed to sit or lean. Photo: AP

It’s quite something to realise that, flying in the face of accusations about how “this generation doesn’t care about politics”, you are watching a live stream of a Senate filibuster with over 180,000 other people. It’s quite another to realise that the media - run by the sort of baby boomers who spout those accusations - seemingly didn’t care.

That was the scene last night here in the States as Sen. Wendy Davis staged a 13-hour filibuster to block an anti-choice bill (CSSB5) that would hamper or remove access to abortion for many women in Texas. The Texas Senate’s YouTube live stream was the place to be, as many of the major news networks evidently didn’t consider the filibuster worthy of coverage.

Indeed, once the filibuster had reached, quite literally, its eleventh hour, CNN - arguably the “real news” network, at least compared to FOX and MSNBC - had more pressing issues to cover: like the calorie content of blueberry muffins. SB5’s attack on women’s reproductive rights, and Sen. Davis and her colleagues’ marathon effort to block it, apparently wasn’t newsworthy enough to break from their usual coverage.

Opponents to an abortion bill sit in the senate chamber as Wendy Davis speaks.

Opponents to an abortion bill sit in the senate chamber as Wendy Davis speaks. Photo: AP

Instead, we watched it happen live on YouTube (and Twitter, Vine, Instagram, Livestream, Reddit and Tumblr), and what a show it was.

Advertisement

Senate Bill 5 sought to “ban abortion after 20 weeks and make abortion clinics abide by the same standards as surgeries, [making] their doctors require admitting privileges in local hospitals”, and would have additionally led to the closure of 37 of Texas’ 42 existing abortion clinics. Fortunately, Sen. Davis and her colleagues saw the urgency of the issue.

(If you’re unfamiliar with the attacks on reproductive rights in the USA, Natasha Vargas-Cooper has written a comprehensive exploration of the language of restrictive abortion law, which covers mandatory counselling, sonograms, Heartbeat and TRAP laws, and parental consent.)

Mammoth filibuster: Wendy Davis.

Mammoth filibuster: Wendy Davis. Photo: AP

I tuned in around 1pm Los Angeles time, when Sen. Davis had already been speaking for four hours, and couldn’t tear myself away. Sen. Davis was reading letters aloud: testimonies from those who’d had abortions, or who’d had access to them blocked, or who’d had catastrophic backyard procedures because they were denied access to safe, legal abortion. One letter Sen. Davis read - about a teenage girl whose father called a local firefighter to perform her abortion, leaving her infertile - moved me to tears. It wouldn’t be the last time.

The rules of the Texas Senate stated that - contrary to what you might have “learned” about filibusters via the work of Aaron Sorkin - Sen. Davis had to stay on topic, and had to stay standing, without accepting any assistance, leaning against her desk, taking a bathroom break, or even a drink of water. Naturally, the Republicans were keen to catch her out, with the main reason for a point of order (essentially, a “strike”) being a lack of germaneness: straying from the topic at hand.

Astoundingly, the Republicans argued that Sen. Davis’ discussion of how SB5 would compound issues women face thanks to existing bills such as 2011’s sonogram bill (which became law in early 2012) was not germane. 

One of many Wendy Davis memes that flooded the internet yesterday.

One of many Wendy Davis memes that flooded the internet yesterday.

Fortunately, Sen. Davis was not fighting by herself. Sen. Rodney Ellis made numerous parliamentary inquiries as to whether Sen. Davis could read him the bill aloud, “slowly”, rather than have an aide give him a printed copy, because “I’m a slow learner, sir”. Sen. Kirk Watson - once named “Texas’ super-lawyer”, and the head of the Senate Democratic Caucus - regularly helped buy her time by asking in-depth questions about SB5; when the third point of order was upheld, he moved to overturn acting Senate President Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst’s motion and debated whether or not the topic of Sen. Davis third point of order was, in fact, non-germane.

And finally, and perhaps most triumphantly, there was Sen. Leticia Van de Putte. The San Antonio Democrat had been out of town at her father’s funeral, and drove back to the Senate to support Sen. Davis. After Sen. Van de Putte’s parliamentary inquiries were repeatedly ignored, she asked, “Did the President hear me or did the President hear me and refuse to recognize me?” With no satisfactory answer, Sen. Van de Putte then asked, “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?”

(Incidentally, Sen. Van de Putte’s powerful quote has been widely misattributed - largely through sharing on Twitter and Tumblr of an image featuring the text of the quote overlaid on a photo of Davis - to Sen. Davis. Combine that with mock-ups of Sen. Davis as Game Of ThronesDaenerys, TV’s great White Saviour, and it’s not a great look for online feminism. It’s also not, I imagine, what Sen. Davis would want the legacy of the filibuster to be.)

After Sen. Van de Putte effectively flummoxed the chair, the chamber erupted in cheers, a tide of applause that would eat up the remaining 15 minutes or so until midnight, after which it would be too late to pass the bill.

That didn’t stop the Republicans from trying, as it turned out; despite the presence of reporters and Democrats - and 180,000 people watching live at home - who saw the clock tick over, Dewhurst claimed that the vote on SB5 had been started prior to midnight. Mercifully, this led to a meeting that eventually found that, no, SB5 had not passed, as the voting (despite the Republicans attempts to change the timestamps) had begun on June 26th.

So, in the end, Sen. Davis stood her ground for 15 hours, not 13, and her marathon filibuster did indeed block SB5 from passing.

But, as is often the case in US politics, the silver lining that was the successful filibuster turned out to be followed by an immensely dark cloud, as this morning the Supreme Court “struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act that kept discriminatory voting laws from going into effect in areas of the country with histories of disenfranchisement. That includes states like Texas, where in 2011 the GOP sought to change the demographic composition of Davis’ district, who was elected in 2008 with strong support from minority voters”.

As ThinkProgress’ coverage notes, that could be sad news for Sen. Davis, as Texas will “advance a voter ID law and the very same redistricting map that was designed to keep Davis out of office”, but it’s far worse news for the many People of Colour in Texas - not to mention PoC, the poor, ill, isolated and elderly in other states - who now find themselves at best unable to form a voting majority and at worst disenfranchised.

And if you thought network news seemed to take only a passing interest in Sen. Davis’ fight on behalf of Texas women, chances are they will care even less about this. If seemingly the entire internet can #standwithwendy, let’s hope that rage can be maintained to #stand with those affected by #VRA.

 

39 comments

  • An inspiring account of a female politician triumphing - just what we need on this day when the blue ties will end up ruling this country (although not just clear which party will be).

    Commenter
    Susan_66
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    June 27, 2013, 8:19AM
    • Roe v Wade was decided on the most imprecise of grounds, a right to privacy that is not recognised either in the constitution, the law or in executive action. It is therefore in that strange area of the law where the court has made a decision that is unconvincing. As a person's health is a state matter, the decision will be overturned when it comes before the Supreme Court by any justice who thinks they are obliged to follow the words of the constitution. Senator Davis's filibuster was not undertaken on behalf of women; but on behalf of the clinics that make millions of dollars of contributions to state election campaigns in order to prevent the law from being changed.

      Commenter
      Ovid
      Location
      Brisbane
      Date and time
      June 27, 2013, 9:13AM
      • Ovid, I would ask if you are any of the following:

        1) A woman;
        2) An American; or,
        3) A mind reader.

        I am two of the three (and mind reader isn't one of them). But as I don't think that you are a mind reader either I would ask that you stop assigning motive to an action which will obviously have serious political consequences to a brave woman who took a stand to preserve her sisters' rights to obtain a safe medical procedure.

        Texas is so often an embarrassment to the rest of the country. I can't wait for these old men to die off an let some people with new ideas take over.

        Commenter
        TK
        Date and time
        June 27, 2013, 9:29AM
      • I find it difficult to believe that a person would stand and talk FOR 15 HOURS, without water, toilet breaks or even leaning against a podium for relief unless they were moved by a conviction unrelated to any supposed financial gains for a third party. Your cynicism is even more breathtaking than the continual attempts by the minority (yes, middle class white men are a minority) in power to assume control over the most personal aspects of private life.

        Commenter
        MerriD
        Date and time
        June 27, 2013, 9:29AM
      • If you genuinely think that Senator Davis, or any right thinking person, supports legal abortion because it generates money for clinics, you sir, are off your rocker.
        It's absurd to to suggest that people don't care about the right for women to have access to safe, legal abortion.
        Are you people aware of what happened in the past, when abortion was illegal?
        Do you realise that it happened anyway, in horrible, illegal backyard abortion clinics, killing women and resulting in terrible suffering.
        What a sick world you would have us live in.

        Commenter
        Jon
        Date and time
        June 27, 2013, 10:42AM
      • "unless they were moved by a conviction unrelated to any supposed financial gains for a third party. "

        She's a politician. Believing that they are motivated by anything other than power and money is laughable at best. You don't get that far without caring about money and power above all else (or being a famous actor...that works too).

        Commenter
        Tim the Toolman
        Date and time
        June 27, 2013, 11:00AM
      • If we're going to zing groups on financial contributions, her opponents are going to come up looking very mucky indeed. In any case, tell us the details of these campaign contributions.

        If you're into the idea of the Abortion Industry, it's certainly nowhere near as financially lucritive as birthing - a legal abortion costs vastly less, it's vastly safer in the US, and there's less requirement for expensive aftercare. No one goes into abortion provision due to the desire to roll in buckets of cash - there is far more available in being a doctor who attends live births.

        Commenter
        Goldenblack
        Location
        Melbourne
        Date and time
        June 27, 2013, 12:33PM
      • Oh Tim, careful you don't cut yourself on your edginess there mate.

        Commenter
        Wibble
        Date and time
        June 27, 2013, 1:00PM
      • Ovid,
        Look up Governor Rick Perry and the trail of campaign donations that have led to his changing laws in Texas.
        This is not gossip, its on the public record.
        Then talk about money and politicians.

        Commenter
        LucilleBluth
        Location
        Melbourne
        Date and time
        June 27, 2013, 3:37PM
    • All power to Wendy but what strange parliamentary rules they have over in the land of the free. At least over here they have time limits on speeches although I seem to recall the Coalition using similar tactics with multiple speakers to delay voting on the Mabo legislation and Labor having to implement a gag motion. Still this is truly whacky that someone would be given the opportunity to talk for 13 hours without having a drink or going to the toilet.

      Commenter
      Brendan
      Location
      Canberra
      Date and time
      June 27, 2013, 9:23AM

      More comments

      Comments are now closed