Loop hole >, <, or = to Loop hole?

In this article, Eileen Smith provides commentary on the recent SB 5 debacle.  This may be a tired topic by this point, but it still gets me fired up.  In summary, she praises Sen. Wendy Davis for her filibuster, then goes on to scold Gov. Perry for his calling of the second special session, then basically says his remarks about Sen. Davis' life don't make sense (when they clearly do.)

So, what I would like to know is what makes a filibuster more respectable of a political tactic than calling a new session?  Truthfully speaking, they are both last ditch, slightly backhanded efforts.  Dictionary.com defines a filibuster as "the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to force a decision against the will of the majority."  The language of this (objective) definition really speaks for itself.  The whole reason we have an elected legislative body is so that votes can be held where in the majority wins.  Filibustering is a loop hole.  So is calling an entirely new session.  A loop hole is a loop hole.  Period.  Moving on..

This is what Gov. Perry had to say regarding Sen. Davis and the new legislation:

“Who are we to say that children born in the worst of circumstances can’t lead successful lives? Even the woman who filibustered the Senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances. She’s the daughter of a single woman, she was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas Senate. It’s just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own example: that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential, and that every life matters.”

Ms. Smith doesn't provide any true argument explaining why she dislikes this statement, instead she makes shallow jokes poking fun at Rick Perry as a politician.  I, however, think Perry makes a completely legitimate and point with a very logical appeal in a debate full of emotion (*with one shortcoming.)  Essentially, Perry suggests that, using Sen. Davis as an example, abortion regulations are acceptable and necessary because each life matters, and one can't simply assume that a child's life would be irreparably damaged if it is born into a fractured environment. The only issue I have with Perry's commentary is that it's slightly shortsighted when viewed as part of the entire abortion struggle.  Many women on the pro-choice side of the debate are less concerned with the life and future of the baby (obviously) and more concerned with the life and future of the mother.  

Over all though, I think that a lot of people (like Smith) are glorifying and dogging on two things which are nearly identical, simply using their personal moral compass as an ultimate truth (and it's really irritating!!)