Recently, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has enacted a strict abortion law requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospital-style surgical centers and have a doctor with admitting privileges at least 30 miles from the abortion clinic, abortions can only be done before the woman is twenty weeks pregnant, and lastly all clinics must be licensed as ambulatory surgery centers.  While two of these restrictions has met general acceptance, the restrictions requiring a doctor with admitting privileges at a near hospital and meeting the standards of hospital style surgery centers has been deemed unconstitutional.  This restriction will cause several abortion clinics to shut down because of the cost of renovations.  In fact, out of the 42 abortion clinics in Texas, only five currently meet these standards. 

                Senator Cruz is appealing the removal of these restrictions and has claimed he will take it all the way to the Supreme Court.  In an article in the Huffington Post, Senator Cruz made a statement saying “Texas passed commonsense legislation to protect the health of women and their unborn children.  This law is constitutional and consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent protecting the life and health of the mother and child.  I hope the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold Texas’ reasonable law.”  While Senator Cruz claims to be working to protect the health of women, pro-choice activists are offering information and data that these measures are unnecessary.  Activists such as Terri Burke, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, have produced evidence that this will actually make it harder for women to find a safe place to get an abortion, creating more back alley abortions and bigger families living below the poverty line.  She says that because of these new laws, “thirty five percent of the population without access to abortion care and those are rural and, often, poor women.”

                Senator Ted Cruz has said over and over that he wants to make abortions illegal and he has now passed this legislature under the mask of “protecting women’s health” while in truth it is one step closer to ridding women of the ability to making their own choices when it comes to their bodies.  Whether or not you agree with the decision a person makes whether it be their religion, career, life choices, or health choices, no one has the right to take that ability to make those decisions away.  

    In an article on the website Politicususa the author, Adalia Woodbury's main topic is how Wendy Davis keeps calling her opponent out on his hypocrisy. The title of the article is, Wendy Davis smacks down Greg Abbott's $20 Mil hypocrisy on Pre-K. The article not only talks about Abbott's hypocrisy, but also about what Abbott's hidden motives are by his actions towards cutting spending on Pre-K.
    Woodbury lays the ground work for her argument by presenting another situation in which Davis calls out Abbott. She refers to the Attorney-General's discriminatory pay policies while claiming to support equal pay for women. Then Woodbury attacks with her main argument. Apparently, Abbott is claiming to support and improve Texas's Pre-K program while defending a cut of $21 million to Texas's Pre-K program in court. Not only is a statement provided expressing the outrage at such blatant hypocrisy and disregard for the public interest Woodbury suggests that Abbott's true agenda with this move is to return to "yester-century". She explains this as being a time when the opportunity for education was only allowed to rich. With this in mind it is argued that Abbott thinks that educating children for 21st century problems is a privilege given only to a few, in a particular those whit a lot of dollar bills.
    Throughout the entire article Woodbury is careful to always use the word fact when talking about anything Davis does or says, "Davis countered Abbott's hypocrisy on an important policy with facts", "Davis' use of facts...", "Aside from using facts to prove...". It's clear that Woodbury wants to portray Davis as someone who does what they say and only sticks to the truth, while painting her opponent as someone who just throws their words around and does whatever they want. Woodbury praises Wendy Davis for, " proving to be a capable leader" while stating that Abbott is shortsighted and uses, "koch style smear tactics"
    Obviously this article is biased, but it's a liberal blog so what do you expect. But even so I still would have liked a little less bias and a lot more facts on Abbott's part. I am a supporter of Wendy Davis but still believe there are two parts to every story. Even if it does turn out to be true it's nice to hear all the facts. Woodbury does and excellent job of presenting Davis as an honest and truthful candidate. But even beyond that she portrays her as someone who will seek justice by not only doing what she says, but also calling out other people who don't. I believe Woodbury was very successful in making Wendy Davis out to be a shiny beacon of justice in comparison to her grimy and sleazy opponent.