Thursday, July 25, 2013

Disability Ethics and the Texas Filibuster

During the June 26 filibuster against Texas Senate Bill 5, senator Wendy Davis was required to stand and present about the bill's subject matter (access to abortion) for 13 hours without eating, drinking, sitting down, leaning on her podium, or going to the bathroom. The filibuster works on a "Three Strikes You're Out" policy, where if Senator Davis was found to be off topic or breaking the rules of the filibuster 3 times, she would be expelled from the floor. Twice, Senator Davis was challenged for going off topic, but one of her warnings came about when one of her colleagues-- Senator Rodney Ellis-- tried to help her tighten her back brace. Senator Tommy Williams is quoted as saying, "A filibuster is an endurance contest and it's to be made unassisted."

While Senator Davis was able to filibuster for an impressive 11+ hours, the Senate's refusal to allow her the use of an assistive device highlights an ableist paradigm in American politics.   I'm interested in the discriminatory nature of the Texas filibuster process, and how it could systematically prevent people with disabilities from participating in the political process. Such overtly negative reactions to the perception of physical weakness are indicative of the internalized ableism which many don't ever think about. What does physicality have to do with politicking, really?  The contents of one's character are vastly more important towards leadership than physical stamina. One of our greatest presidents, Franklin D Roosevelt, led the nation into war from a wheelchair. There's a great tradition of disabled veterans, like former senator Bob Dole, current representative James Langevin and current senator Tammy Duckworth, returning from war to enter the political sphere. Disability doesn't hinder one's performance intellectually, and in fact may cause people to pursue more intellectual ambitions once physical ones become harder to accomplish.


No comments:

Post a Comment