Greg Abbott Is in a Wheelchair. Can We Move On Now?

Categories: Politics

Gregabbottpictureswith.JPG
Yesterday, with the state's attention still glued to Wendy Davis' Trailergate, competing groups attempted to roll Greg Abbott's wheelchair into the gubernatorial debate.

First came James O'Keefe's latest undercover video showing a Battleground Texas volunteer identified as attorney Lisa Wortham (the "Lewisville Team Leader") saying "I'm really wondering how this is going to work out because [Abbott]'s in a wheelchair and her slogan is 'Stand with Wendy.'"

The progressive Lone Star Project countered with an audio clip of Republican political consultant Luke Macias saying that Davis succeeds by making women feel victimized but that "she can't make suburban women feel like victims to the wheelchair."

See also: A Dallas Morning News Columnist Explains the "'Yuck' Factor" of Wendy Davis Bio

Both statements are offensive (the former somewhat more than the latter), and Wortham and Macias were stupid to say them. But an off-handed comment by some unpaid volunteer or small-time political functionary says nothing about Davis, Abbott or their campaigns, just that human beings can be ignorant and dumb.

So, until Abbott miraculously regains the ability to walk or Davis shoves his wheelchair down a flight of stairs, let's keep his paraplegia off the table, OK?

Send your story tips to the author, Eric Nicholson.

My Voice Nation Help
56 comments
ksrae13
ksrae13

I researched (as best i could) and could not find any reason that he could move his legs from the knee down. HMMMM. supposedly he is paralyzed from the waist down.................

ksrae13
ksrae13

If Abbott is paralyzed from the waist down (from the accident) how did he move his lower legs and feet (pigeon toed) on his commercial while sitting in wheelchair on the U.S. Map? or - what am I missing?

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Ok.  Let's move on.

On Tuesday, Davis hastily “went country,” announcing her plans to strengthen gun rights by supporting, as the Associated Press reported, “legislation that allows workers to keep their guns in their vehicles at work.”

Good to see her inner Texan suddenly leaping out.  Maybe she should pose for the scantily clad Gals with Guns calendar?

(similar legislation already passed in 2011—something she should know, as she voted for it at the time. She also, for the record, pushed for gun control measures as a city councilor in Fort Worth, and told an interviewer last year she would do the same as governor.)

a regular Annie Oakley.


cherifoxxxdfw
cherifoxxxdfw

I don't mind about his crippled body ... I worry about his crippled mind.

rufuslevin
rufuslevin

waiting  for the TV ad showing Wendy Davis shoving Greg Abbott in his wheelchair off a cliff, like the DNC ad against the RNC opposition to Obamacare.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Wendy Davis is what we get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park.

ruddski
ruddski

We can't move on until Saturday Night Live chimes in.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Before we dismiss this issue it's prudent to be aware of Abbott's opposition to laws protecting Americans with disabilities:


Abbott: The State of Texas is immune from federal protections prohibiting discrimination based on a person’s disability.

State Attorney General Greg Abbott has gone to court to declare that Texas has sovereign immunity from the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law guaranteeing full civil rights to people with disabilities. General Abbott is using a disputed constitutional argument to maintain that the United States Congress overstepped its authority by trying to guarantee Texans with disabilities the basic civil right to be free from discrimination. ---Coalition of Texans with Disabilities

nene1957
nene1957

@ksrae13  I have been wondering about that too!!  I didn't think it would be possible.

nene1957
nene1957

@Catbird  LOL!!!  Those danged old east coast commies!!!  How old are you exactly?? 

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@Catbird

"east coast commies" like Jonathan and Patti Kraft?

The Jonathan Kraft who was a partner at Bain, runs Kraft Group and owns the Patriots and NE Revolution?

yeah, what a capitalist commie! wait, how can there be such a thing?

oh yeah, there can't. a total contradiction.

stupid catbird, doesn't know the difference between a capitalist and a communist.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

As your article points out the answer to Eric's question "Can we move on now?" In regard to Abbott's wheelchair ("it has legs"...good grief) is no, because apparently the Abbott supporters and the right wing writers found in places like the Orange County Register do not want to "move on".

The Abbott camp must believe they can get the voter to view Abbott as someone who has overcome his disability to reach his goals. Unfortunately when the facts come out about how Abbott has worked to deny others who are afflicted with similar circumstances the ability to pursue the same compensation as Abbott received that narrative will not fly.

ruddski
ruddski

Dude, she's a lawyer. A fifty will do.

dingo
dingo

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz  

Sanford Levinson, a University of Texas Law School professor with a specialty in constitutional law, said the real culprit is the U.S. Supreme Court for a "wicked decision" in an Alabama case saying the state couldn't be sued for damages by a state employee "who they basically fired because she got cancer."

"When he says, 'Well, my job is to defend the legal interests of Texas, and one of those legal interests is never to spend a dime that it doesn't have to' ... that's not an outrageous view in terms of the duties of the AG. The people who should be denounced, up and down, 24 hours a day, are the five members of the United States Supreme Court who have upheld these kinds of claims," Levinson said.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Abbott-s-sovereignty-stance-on-disability-law-4692193.php

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz 

This should not come as a surprise.  It is really not very different from his position on tort reform limiting monetary amounts for compensatory and punitive awards.

Catbird
Catbird

@nene1957 @Catbird  old enough to remember how proud I felt when John Kennedy took the oath and how cheated I felt when he was murdered by the globalists in Dallas. 

Catbird
Catbird

@mavdog @Catbird You really need to catch up mavdog, the commies defeated the "capitalists" in the late 1960's. The Capitalists are extinct. All that's left are the globalist corporations who are using the commies and their sympathizers to tribalize and divide what's left of America so they can more easily absorb it into a one world global system. If elected, Davis will be to Texas what BHO has been to the US - a globalist puppet...but you probably think that's a good thing...Cheers!  

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@dingo

your link is not accesible (no pun intended...) it is behind a firewall.

the quote you paste is saying 'blame the SCOTUS for recognizing the 11th Amendment".

no, not in the least, for it is the decision of the AG, Abbott, to go to court and defend that right of immunity to claims based on disability discrimination which should bear the blame. It is a conscious decision by Abbott to deny the right to seek damages, and the opposite could have easily happened- the AG taking the position the citizens of Texas deserve to have the right to bring suit against the State and, if the State is found to be guilty of not following the law, to receive compensation.

It is Abbott and Abbott himself who is refusing to acknowledge this right. the blame lands only on his shoulders.

btw to try and put a label on Levinson such as "liberal" doesn't fit...

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

@dingo@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz 

How could any person who personally gained from laws and lawsuits aimed at protecting those injured and disabled be against those laws and lawsuits if not a hypocrite and sociopath?

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Point being, Abbott, as a taxpayer servant, will always have his needs taken care of.  Meanwhile, the disabled citizens he couldn't care less about would suffer if he had his way.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@Catbird

oh, "capitalists" are "extinct", and now we hear "Globalists" are not "capitalists", because of course "the commies" won.

and here I thought you couldn't get any more convoluted and screwed up.

I was wrong.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@Catbird

oh, the "commies" won and the "capitalists" lost....and today "the Capitalist are extinct".

how odd to read this weekend about "the war against the 1%". you know, the 1% that is made up of those capitalists who have garnered $Billions in wealth.

good grief, you are batshit crazy. completely, totally delusional.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @holmantx 

Nor can I allow you to call a bent "expert witness" to cast doubt in order to obtain a jackpot award.

which is what you just did.

And you know it (ha!)

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

oh holman, you can't win by putting your hands over your ears and saying "I can't hear the data, now it doesn't exist!" over and over.....

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @holmantx  

you reference two lawyers who don't like tort reform?  Seriously?  OF COURSE they don't like caps!  One's from NY law school and the other is a JD quoting a hack Associate Professor of Finance out of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

not so fast..

Where doctors choose to practice and live has no connection to a state's tort law.

http://centerjd.org/content/exposing-medical-myths

and then there is cause and effect...

a recent study by Kellogg School of Management finance professor David A. Matsa shows no statewide increase in the number of physicians who choose to practice within the states that pass laws capping damages.

http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/does_malpractice_liability_keep_the_doctor_away/

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @holmantx    Once again, you don't know what you are talking about, but continue to smirk:

Impact of State Laws Limiting Malpractice Awards on Geographic Distribution

By Fred J. Hellinger, Ph.D* and William E. Encinosa, Ph.D.* 

* U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Organization and Delivery Studies, 540 Gaither Road, Room 5319, Rockville Maryland 20850. Phone: (301) 427-1408; Fax:(301) 427-1430

Abstract

Researchers at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) have examined the impact of different kinds of State laws in a number of previous studies. This study examines the impact of State legislation that caps damage awards in malpractice cases on decisions of physicians about where to practice medicine.

Twenty-four States now have laws that limit damage payments in malpractice cases. Most of these laws limit the amounts paid for noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) but a few limit both economic (e.g., medical expenses and lost wages) and noneconomic damages. There is currently a national debate on the desirability of extending caps on malpractice damage awards to all States, and President Bush recently introduced a proposal to cap payments for noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases at $250,000.

Supporters of legislation to cap damages in malpractice cases maintain that it reduces malpractice premiums and helps insure an adequate supply of physicians. They also assert that escalating, multi-million-dollar jury awards are driving malpractice premium increases and that capping damage awards for pain and suffering helps restrain the rate of increase. Without such a law, it is asserted that the loss of affordable medical malpractice insurance for physicians could eventually lead to the loss of affordable, accessible health care. Opponents of this legislation maintain that insurance companies are trying to compensate for poor business decisions and fading investment income.

Although there is some evidence in the literature demonstrating that physicians in States with tort reform laws capping malpractice awards enjoy lower malpractice premiums, there is no evidence about the impact of malpractice cap legislation on decisions by physicians regarding geographic location. This study is the first to supply such evidence.

A simple comparison of the supply of physicians per capita between States that did and did not adopt a cap revealed that States with caps experienced a more rapid increase in their supply of physicians. In 1970, before any States had a law capping damage payments in malpractice cases, States that eventually adopted a cap and States that did not eventually adopt a cap had virtually identical levels of physicians per 100,000 citizens per county (69 vs. 67).Thirty years later in 2000, States that adopted a cap averaged 135 physicians per 100,000 citizens per county while States without a cap averaged 120.

Adjusting for a variety of factors in a multivariate regression model, we found that States with caps on noneconomic damages experienced about 12 percent more physicians per capita than States without such a cap. Moreover, we found that States with relatively high caps were less likely to experience an increase in physician supply than States with lower caps.

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/final-reports/tortcaps/tortcaps.html

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

first, the majority of states have enacted some sort of cap on malpractice but not a majority on personal injury.

second, there are no "problems hanging on to doctors" in states without caps, such as New York, Pennsylvania, KY, MN etc. these states have dynamic, expanding health care providors.

the use of alternative sources of compensation does not guarnatee an appropriate amount of compensation, and does not direct the responsible party to bear the costs, in fact what you propose shifts the burden away from those responsible to the american taxpayer. what?

wow, not only are you inconsistent in your position on reducing the taxpayer's burden but you are also advocating a lack of responsibility for the actor who brought on the problem. and you throw out "idiot"??

tsk tsk. hypocrite comes to mind...

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @holmantx 

Most states have similar caps.

For a reason.

12 do not and they have problems hanging on to doctors.

and there's always federal disability, which is now broke and has to be bailed out because of idiots like you.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

failed to see the words "adequate compensation" in my post, huh? go figure...

Texas limits noneconomic damages for all doctors and health care practitioners to $250,000.00. Total liability for any one health care facility may not exceed $250,000.00, and total liability for all defendant health care facilities may not exceed $500,000.00. This creates an effective overall damages cap of $750,000.00

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/malpractice_by_state/Texas.html

the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" comes to mind.

so let's say you are a 20 something who gets poor medical treatment that makes you unable to work, have a family, or other malady, and you go to the court to seek compensation. the court finds the medical providor at fault, the total amount that one would receive for these errors is capped. no matter the extent. no matter how egregious the error.

yet to some, such as Abbott,it is most important to make sure these victims don't get to receive their fair compensation...

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @holmantx  

The ACA is DOA.

You can sue for malpractice in Texas.  That is not the issue and you know it.  

"I wasn't aware that justice and equity under the law had any political connotations."

and that's pretty funny.  In fact  - hilarious in the current regulatory environment, and executive orders.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

Had Pelosi not struck tort reform submitted by the Republicans, the ACA would have been bipartisan and it could have been saved.

"saved"? it passed and is the law of the land.

you bring up an interesting point, that the right wing would support mandatory heathcare coverage for all citizens if it were not for that pesky right of the insured to sue if malpractice occurs.

I expect there to be very, very few who would concur with that opinion.

"You are hallucinating once again if you think the return of Jackpot Justice will turn Texas blue"

whaaattt? the issue isn't about "turning Texas blue", the issue is to allow for people who have been injured to be able to go to the courts and seek adequate compensation. this shouldn't be a "red" or a "blue" issue, this is simply a question of justice.

I wasn't aware that justice and equity under the law had any political connotations.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @holmantx 

Oh, you're bitching about tort reform.

The same moronic block that killed Obamacare.

Had Pelosi not struck tort reform submitted by the Republicans, the ACA would have been bipartisan and it could have been saved.

You dumbasses never learn.  That is why your 15 minutes of control time is coming to a halt.  Then back you go to the minority opposition while the adults fix what you have broken.

You are hallucinating once again if you think the return of Jackpot Justice will turn Texas blue.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

the federal disability program? you link to a 60 minutes segment on the federal disability program when the subject of Abbott and his push for limitations on individual injury claims is on the table?

bwahahahaha. really, really funny! sad too in its ignorance, but funny nonetheless.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

yep, if your bag is empty and you're absent any defense, deflect.

Abbott is not a advocate for those who are injured and worked to prevent them from receiving the same type of award for their injury that he did.

sad.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

"And what about this?
You might as well see this, too. Writing those dirty words! I can even remember the last time
I saw words like that written down! But, why would she do a thing like this? You know what makes her
do things like this! She's sick, and she's not
getting any better."

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@dingo

well golly, if wikipedia says it then it MUST be true!  if it's on the internet, it's right!

if one reads Levinson's quotes it's easy to see his positions are not easily filed as "liberal" or "conservative". but if you must apply labels so he fits in whatever neat little box you wish to use don't let the lack of actually thinking about these positions stop you.

I understand what Levinson is saying, but that is beside the point that Abbott made the deliberate decision to use the courts to deny Texas citizens the right to sue the State and, if successful, receive damages.

A recent example of a State AG who has the integrity to perform his job as a servant of the State's citizens: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/23/virginia-ag-gay-marriage/4791715/

unfortunately Texas doesn't have an AG who possesses that integrity, we have Greg Abbott.

dsmithy3211
dsmithy3211

@dingo @mavdog Prof. Levinson may be liberal on the social and political spectra.  His interpretation of the Constitution contains more than a shade of Scalia-esque originalism.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@dingo

well golly, if wikipedia says it then it MUST be true! if you read it on the internet, it's right!

if one reads Levinson's quotes it's easy to see his positions are not easily filed as "liberal" or "conservative". but if you must apply labels so he fits in whatever neat little box you wish to use don't let the lack of actually thinking about these positions stop you.

I understand what Levinson is saying, but that is beside the point: Abbott made the deliberate decision to use the courts to deny Texas citizens the right to sue the State and, if successful, receive damages.

A recent example of a State AG who has the integrity to perform his job as a servant of the State's citizens: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/23/virginia-ag-gay-marriage/4791715/

unfortunately Texas doesn't have an AG who possesses that integrity, we have Greg Abbott.

dingo
dingo

@mavdog You better edit his Wikipedia entry then:


Sanford Victor Levinson (born June 17, 1941)[1] is a prominent American liberal law professor and acknowledged expert on Constitutional law and legal scholar and professor of government at the University of Texas Law School.  

Again, I'm sure you understand the situation (constitutional law as it applies to state of Texas matters) better than he does. What do you bill, Maybe $1200.00/hr for your opinions?


dingo
dingo

@Montemalone@dingo@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz  

Abbott never gained from suing the state over the ADA. He doesn't wish to prevent others from suing where sovereign immunity does not apply (as was his case).

Its even more complicated than your basic misapprehension reveals. Abbott is  adhering to his annointed public duty despite his own circumstances, based upon 11th amendment rights regarding damages but not injunctive relief, immunity at the state level but not at municipal level, 14th amendment end runs around 11th amendment sovereignty based upon ADA Title II provisions, etc.....

Its not a stretch here to rely on a left-wing UT professor's assessment rather than your oversimplified mischaracterization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Levinson

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...