.... Almost as if there were something inherently abhorrent about it, which at risk of stating the obvious, there is.
Never ceases to amaze me how liberals, having elevated the killing of unborn children to the realm of sacrament, go out of their way to avoid actually saying the word "abortion". (Video after the jump)
This peculiar tendency was on inglorious display yesterday when Texas state senator Wendy Davis, newly-minted left-wing rock star after her 11-hour filibuster in defense of "abortion rights," appeared on "Meet the Press."
In the course of a five-minute interview, Davis adroitly tiptoed around the donkey-in-the-room subject at hand while deploying a creative array of euphemisms for it. To avoid sullying herself by saying abortion, Davis instead spouted these --
"matters of personal liberty"
"intrusions against our personal liberty"
"doctors who are able to function in this arena"
"turning back the clock"
Davis was also duplicitous when asked pointedly by Gregory on whether she opposes abortion after 20 weeks, answering in such a way that it sounded like she does, when the entire point of her filibuster was adamant support for abortion on demand through the entirety of pregnancy --
GREGORY: Senator, do you think a 20-week ban on abortion is acceptable? Do you think it's reasonable?
DAVIS: Right now, that ban, of course, is being talked about because of the idea of fetal pain and at the constitututional level what we, of course, have assured is that women have the ability to make these reproducive decisions up to the point of viability. That has to remain the key question here and, of course, when we're talking about that particular issue there are very, very few. It's used more as an emotional trigger point as part of the argument, but remember, it's a huge omnibus bill that involves many, many other aspects to it that are setting Texas back.
Once again, the curiously vague language, along with Davis's frequent resort to the royal "we" -- as in, "at the constitutional level what we, of course, have assured is that women have the ability to make these reproductive decisions up to the point of viability." In other words, "we" agree with the Roe v. Wade framework that allows abortion to the end of the second trimester, but only under extraordinary circumstances after viability is established at the onset of the third trimester.
After emphasizing that this is "of course" what "we" believe, Davis hastened to add that there are "very, very few" -- as in, ahem, third-trimester abortions. That being the case, why all the sturm and drang over an allegedly rare procedure that "of course" should not be taking place anyway?
Sounds like what you'd expect from an ambitious state senator all but running for governor and keenly aware that just as many women oppose late-term abortion as do support it.