A single mother working two jobs, she met Jeff Davis, a lawyer 13 years older than her, married him and had a second daughter. He paid for her last two years at Texas Christian University and her time at Harvard Law School, and kept their two daughters while she was in Boston. When they divorced in 2005, he was granted parental custody, and the girls stayed with him. Wendy Davis was directed to pay child support.
In an extensive interview last week, Davis acknowledged some chronological errors and incomplete details in what she and her aides have said about her life.
There are a number of damaging points in this narrative, regardless of to what extend she lied about it. Probably the worst is that she didn't earn her way through college and law school; half of her college education and all of her law school education was paid for her husband, who cashed in his 401k and took out a loan to pay for it. That wouldn't be so bad by itself, but the details add up. It seems she initiated the relationship despite a significant age gap. In addition to paying for her legal education, he got her started in politics using his own connections. Still not too big a deal; Hillary Clinton got into politics the same way after all.
But the timing raises questions:
Over time, the Davises marriage was strained. In November 2003, Wendy Davis moved out. Jeff Davis said that was right around the time the final payment on their Harvard Law School loan was due. "It was ironic," he said. "I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left."
When you put the pieces together, it seems obvious she married him so that he would pay her way through school, and left as soon as there wasn't anything in it for her. And if you believe her now-ex husband, started sleeping around before she left.
Worse, she had two daughters, one from this marriage and one from a prior marriage. Her second ex-husband had custody and she pays child support to him. It looks a lot like she didn't want her husband or her kids. In that light, her dramatic (and ignorant) support for abortion rights looks ... rather unpleasant. Even if you put the best face on it, it's a long ways from a story of someone pulling themselves up on their own efforts.
My take on abortion is that it's a tough moral question that the state doesn't really have a lot of business getting involved in. Given my druthers, I would remove federal restrictions and let individual states set their own policies, which individuals could then choose to move to or away from. I find people who crusade for extremely permissive abortion rules to be crassly denying even the existence of a tough moral question that humanity has struggled with for thousands of years. State a policy position and give your reasoning for it, but at least admit there's a question and the counterarguments are valid.
Texas can do better than Abortion Barbie.
This entry was published Tue Jan 21 02:27:17 CST 2014 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2014-01-21 02:27:17.0.