Really? Unlike Daily Caller, Newbusters, etc., MSNBC reports - both sides

of the story, including Abbott's frontrunner status, then leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions.  Jumping the gun in haste to crow over the controversial ad is a bit premature considering the evening news programs are still ahead of us.  It also does not change Greg Abbott's well documented history of using his disability, and specifically his paralysis (not mentioned in the Davis ad) when promoting his own candidacy. Texans are also well aware of the many  unfavorable decisions he has made on disability and victim issues and the deep hypocrisy he has displayed in the process.  Only a few of these were mentioned in the ad:  

"Abbott argued a woman whose leg was amputated was not disabled because she had an artificial limb. He ruled against a rape victim who sued a corporation for failing to do a background check on a sexual predator. He sided with a hospital that failed to stop a dangerous surgeon who paralyzed patients."

Abbott received $6 million in compensation after his accident in 1984, yet he now promotes limits on rewards plaintiffs can claim in lawsuits and imposed higher standards for proving wrongdoing.  The most restrictive "reforms" have been claims based on noneconomic losses, such as mental pain and anguish.  Those damages are now capped at $750,000. In 2003 the state further capped punitive damages specifically in medical-malpractice cases at $250,000 ....versus $6 million.  That's what Wendy Davis is talking about.  

Abbott also believes Title II ADA mandates are unconstitutional. He thinks the state is immune from disability lawsuits brought under the ADA, including discrimination and equal access actions, unsuccessfully arguing state immunity under the 11th Amendment.  For instance, he opposes requiring certified interpreters for the deaf during hearings and other court proceedings. It took 5 years for a nearly blind Texas Tech professor with a degenerative eye disease to get her case to the federal appeals level.  All she was asking for was reflective safety tape to be put on stairs leading to her office and voice-recognition software.  The ruling found the state waives soverign immunity when it accepts federal funding, which was the case with Texas Tech.  In a jury trial, the same plaintiff also won gender discrimination action against the same institution for receiving less pay and being passed over for tenure in favor of less qualified men.  

BTW, he lost when he tried to deny the amputee with a prosthesis disability, despite his best efforts to block that case.  In McCarthy vs Hawkins 25,000 disabled Texans stuck on waiting lists for years to get community based services prevailed. Abbott used the losing state immunity argument. Meyers ex rel. Benxing vs Texas class action on behalf of disabled drivers claimed ADA violations when the state charged fees for handicapped parking placards.   The 5th Circuit appeals courts was not really amused with Abbott's sovereign immunity defense, which was waived when he reached federal court jurisdiction (LOL).  State had to pay $24 million in damages including refunds for placard fees.

There's more, but you get the idea.  Conservative media can have its 15 minutes of indignation over the ad, but it won't stop disabled Texans and their families from supporting Wendy Davis. 

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/14847/greg-abbott-loves-and-hates-the-ada

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/19/gop-candidate-fortexgovernordisappointssomedisabilityadvocates.html

http://prospect.org/article/maybe-wendy-davis-attack-ad-wasnt-really-so-bad-after-all 

Look at poll on HuffPo. - Go Texas!

I think not. The issues comes down to basic rights for women....sm - dusty