Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Glamorizing Abortion

Last month a Texas state senator shot to fame filibustering a draconian GOP-sponsored bill that would have severely hindered abortion rights in the state by closing some clinics and outlawing certain procedures. She did it in pink running shoes before changing into Reed Krakoff pumps for a Vogue photo shoot about the filibuster. That senator was of course Wendy Davis, and the description above is how reporters in the liberal media framed Davis’s 11-hour standoff against the Republican majority of the Texas legislature.

The majority of Americans, even those who otherwise identify as pro-choice, were uncomfortable with the “rights” that Davis was so enthusiastically defending, according to poll after poll. Despite the narrative that this bill endangered abortion as a whole, it’s clear that Americans see the distinction between first-trimester abortion and what Davis was fighting for: late-term termination of fetuses that have the capability of experiencing pain and surviving outside the womb. At the time Jonathan explained:

I have one question for those insisting that this is the only possible interpretation of what happened yesterday: Doesn’t anybody remember the Gosnell case? After what we saw happen in Philadelphia, no matter whether you favor abortion rights or oppose them, how can any measure that is aimed at preventing late term abortions (which are already illegal in most parts of the country after 24 weeks) and ensuring the places where they occur will be prepared to deal with medical emergencies including live births be dismissed so cavalierly?

The narrative formed about Davis from the start centered not on her extreme position on abortion, but instead on her attractive appearance and pink sneakers. A recently published profile in Vogue discusses her looks at length, to the exclusion of the policy that she spent 11 hours defending in her now famous sneakers. In just the first paragraph of the piece, Vogue describes the woman in the image accompanying the text as “a stunning blonde, petite at five feet four inches and barefoot in 7 for All Mankind jeans and barely there makeup.” 

RedState blogger Erick Erickson found himself in quite a bit of hot water this week after referring to Davis as “Abortion Barbie” on his Twitter feed. Liberals are outraged at the comparison between the “stunning blonde” (as Vogue describes her) and the iconic doll known for her attractive blonde looks. The New Yorker‘s Amy Davidson explains that the outrage stems from the assumption that by calling Davis “Abortion Barbie,” Erickson was really demeaning her intelligence. While Erickson’s tweet explains that Davis didn’t understand the facts of the Kermit Gosnell case (which is accurate), he in no way insinuates that is due to stupidity. Davidson seems to believe that implying that someone is a “Barbie,” a doll that has been marketed as a doctor, pilot, architect, and computer engineer, is an insult to intelligence verses a physical descriptor of a thin, attractive blonde woman who favors the color pink. 

The manufactured outrage surrounding Erickson’s comments, with no mention of the shallowness of Vogue‘s treatment of a sitting state senator in a state as large and influential as Texas, speaks volumes to just how committed the left really is to feminism, and how desperate they are to defend what they truly value: abortion, of any kind, on-demand. While Vogue can dwell on Davis’s physical appearance to the exclusion of all else, her detractors are vilified for doing the same. One can understand why Vogue would take this angle: it’s far more preferable to talk about Davis’s fashion choices (which are discussed at length throughout the piece) verses what she was made famous defending: subpar standards at clinics that perform major medical procedures on women and the dismemberment of fetuses who have been scientifically proven to feel pain. The Vogue/Erickson controversy is yet another example how the left insists on having its cake and eating it too, not to mention how the media continues to allow them to get away with it.



Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.