Laughing With Us or At Us

Eileen Smith is the editor of the local political blog, In the Pink, who has been named Best Blogger by the Austin Chronicle, which also named In the Pink the Best Local Political Blog in 2008. She was also named Best Local Blogger by the Austin Chronicle in 2009. While Smith utilizes humor and satire, her blog calls attention to many important political issues in Texas.

In the July 16, 2013 article,"Señor Abbott," Smith argues that Texas has become a laughing stock of the country, with special thanks to governor Rick Perry’s recent “call [for] Legislators” to return for an “emergency special session on a statewide ban on any feminine [hygiene] products,” which could be used as weapons to attack state officials.

Ironically, during the regular Legislative session (83(R)) House Bill 1862 was signed into law by Perry, which removed switchblades from the list of prohibited weapons (in relation to the criminal consequences of engaging in certain conduct with prohibited weapons). This makes one wonder whether tampons are more dangerous than switchblades. 

Smith further asserts that the country’s laughter will continue as Greg Abbott recently announced that he will be running for governor of Texas. Why would this perpetuate the mockery? Smith notes, “In his time as attorney general, Greg Abbott has, among other disturbing things, conducted widespread deli raids with ICE agents and earnestly defended the rights of cheerleaders to speak in tongues during football games.” Smith, of course, is underlining some of the extreme and odd measures and positions Greg Abbot has taken in his career.

Among those “other things,” the Houston Chronicle notes that Abbot has approved the TX Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to exclude clinics affiliated with abortion providers from the Medicaid program and has since taken legal action, filing a law suit to stop the federal government from ending federal funding of the Texas Medicaid Women's Health program. This strongly relates to House Bill 2, which Governor Rick Perry recently signed into law, which places restrictions on abortions in the state of Texas, which many view as placing restrictions on women’s rights. It was during the Senate discussion of House Bill 2 that feminine products were banned from the state capitol gallery, as many feared they would be thrown at officials as a sign of protest.  

Smith further points out Abbot’s insularity by highlighting his recent statement, made in a podcast on Coffee and Markets, that he is not personally concerned with the idea of attracting Hispanic voters. Hmm, this sounds quite similar to Phyllis Schlafly’s stance on the GOP’s efforts to secure the Hispanic vote. Smith points out that Abbot’s wife is Hispanic, which underlines the peculiarity of his indifference to connecting with the growing Hispanic population of Texas. 

The evidence lies in Smith’s supporting sources, which she provides as hyperlinks within the editorial. The reader is able to listen to the pod cast of Greg Abbot’s statement about his disinterest with gaining the Hispanic vote in his campaign plans for Texas governor. Not only is this provided but also a recent editorial on The Washington Post, which discusses how handguns (for those with concealed carrying licenses) were allowed on the gallery floor while House Bill 2 was discussed, yet tampons and pads  were not. The Huffington Post has a similar article which features a woman who had her feminine products confiscated as well as the food she carried to help manage her diabetes.

As a native Texan who has become accustomed to the norm of unpredictable and extreme actions of our state and local government, which continue to shape our reputation, I find Smith’s arguments rather convincing. Prior to reading the editorial I was unaware of the issue of banning feminine products in the state capitol but found that the issue has been widely covered and criticized, not only in the state of Texas but on a national level. While I do not know many particulars about Greg Abbot, other than his role as Texas Attorney General, I find Smith’s choice of his career highlights to be rather unconventional, but factual. Although her descriptions of Abbot's “disturbing” acts are somewhat exaggerated, her credibility lies in the actuality of the events, which one was reported by the Office of the Attorney General, while the ICE raid at the Texas French Bread Company seemed to only be covered by bloggers such as Smith.

I am sure that Greg Abbot has done more for Texas than initiate round ups for illegal aliens but, as we know, each and every choice, action, or event in one’s personal life or career will be brought under the microscope when running for president of the US or governor of Texas. Here lies the political significance of Smith’s argument. If Texas wants to create an image of itself as a diverse state which has limited government, why take such extreme measures (especially against women) to impose upon the peoples’ rights. Second, if Greg Abbot truly wants to win the election as governor of Texas then perhaps he should start focusing on what actions he can take now to get there. I’m sure the support of his family members (votes) could help him get there.