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.
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….
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….
…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….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….
via Commentary Magazine.