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!!)

The Importance of Minorities and Majorities

The Daily Texan published an article on Monday, July 1st regarding the hot button abortion debate topic and the effect passing the bill would have on University students as well as other women seeking healthcare from the affected clinics.  This article startled me initially, as it seemed to imply that if SB 5 were to pass that many female students would be forced to receive unsafe abortions - as if there's a high quantity of students getting abortions in the first place.  This concerned me in two ways: either the author is correct, and there's a trend among these (highly educated) ladies to rely on abortion, or the author is incorrect and simply warping the truth for the sake of a controversial article.  In any case however, this was not the most critical point of the article.  As the author describes the event of Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster, he explains that "Democrats, the minority party, successfully killed the abortion bill SB 5 by talking nonstop for 11 hours." This statement is delightfully simplistic and helped me articulate a thought that had been rolling around in my head for some time now.  One of the key issues regarding Senate Bill 5 is women's rights and the representation of women's beliefs in Texas Government.  However, Pence is correct in mentioning that Democrats are currently the minority in the Texas Senate.  The point I'm trying to get at is that many liberals and other pro-choice believers are creating this image that the Senate is somehow passing a bill that few people support, but that's simply untrue.  We know that Republicans tend to be pro-life believers and Democrats pro-choice, so in this event I believe it's clear that the majority ultimately won, which is a representative majority of the entire state of Texas, a fact which I think has been overlooked.  This article provides great insight from both sides of the SB 5 debate, and is a very thought provoking read.