Greg Abbott Refuses To Denounce Surrogate’s Claim That Rape and Incest are “Minor Issues”

The fact that Greg Abbott refuses to denounce his surrogate's position and lack of concern about victims of incest and rape speaks volumes.…

During an interview, one of Greg Abbott’s surrogates revealed that Abbott is an Attorney-General is soft on crime – at least when the crime is a violent act against women.  According to this surrogate, rape and incest are “minor issues” because they only account for 1 per cent of all abortions. Never mind that the issue is far from minor for the victims.

The fact that Greg Abbott refuses to denounce his surrogate’s position and lack of concern about victims of incest and rape speaks volumes. More so, when we consider Abbott’s opposition to the constitutional protection that gives women autonomy over their reproductive choices.

There is nothing new about Abbott’s extreme belief that the state should dictate the healthcare and family planning decisions of women.  Back in 2002, when Abbott was campaigning for his current job, he revealed his final position on women’s reproductive rights, describing it as “unwavering throughout my personal life and political career.”

As the Texas Tribune reported at the time, it took Abbott a couple of tries before coming up with his “unwavering” view that women should be forced to bear children resulting from rape and incest.

I believe deeply in the sanctity of life, including the life of the mother. Whenever a mother’s life or health is threatened or endangered, measures should be taken to protect the mother. Regarding instances of rape and incest, which constitute less than 1 percent of all abortions and are admittedly very difficult situations, I further believe life must be preserved.

The U.S. constitutional protection that provides women with the right to make their own decisions on reproductive matters is secondary to Attorney-General Abbott’s concern about the “lives” of zygotes conceived through rape or incest because, according to him, that would be “discriminating against” the zygote or fetus. ­­­

Since Texas gives custody and visitation rights to the rapist who “fathered” a child and Abbott hasn’t challenged that law or called for a change in it, we can conclude that Abbott also believes the “rights” of rapists should prevail over a women’s constitutional right to make her own reproductive choices.

Abbott’s disrespect for women is reinforced when you look at his long practiced policies of gender (and race) based pay discrimination, his now revealed lack of concern about violent crimes against women and his war on women’s constitutional right to make our own reproductive choices.

We can also see it in the way he chose to attack Wendy Davis, who has consistently whittled away at Abbott’s political support. Remember Abbott’s silence during the “Abortion Barbie” attacks?

It’s interesting that Abbott, as the alleged front-runner, continues to attack Wendy Davis.  As noted by the Texas Tribune’s Ross Ramsey. front runners ignore their political opponents.  So, is Abbott attacking Wendy Davis because she continues to make gains the polls or is it because he has issues with a woman competing against him?  Only Abbott knows for sure.

Even if you support Abbott’s belief that women’s constitutional rights should be secondary to the rights of a zygote or a rapist, his enthusiasm for preserving life and interests of the child expires at birth.

Abbot says he opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest because that would “discriminate against the child.”  Yet, he believes in waiting until the child is born to discriminate against them. We see evidence of that in his choice of white nationalist and misogynistic, Charles Murray as his education adviser. We see further evidence in his defense of an unconstitutional education finance scheme that Texas Courts ruled was insufficient to meet educational needs.

Half of the 2.8 million Texans who work for minimum wage raise families on that income.  That means their children are living with all the consequences of poverty, including hunger and lack of access to health care.  Abbott opposes an increase to the minimum wage even in the name of preserving life once it’s outside the womb.

Abbott’s alleged concern about preserving life also rings hollow when you consider he panders to the Koch Brothers who are more than happy to play chemical Russian roulette with the lives of Texans.

When you connect the dots, Greg Abbott’s agenda has nothing to do with preserving life, and everything to do pandering to corporate donors at the expense of the lives and rights of women, children and the men who love them. The question is whether enough Texans will wake up to this reality before it’s too late.