Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1017

Cameron Diaz Is Playing Miss Hannigan in the Weird and/or Cool 'Annie' Movie

Cameron Diaz is going to be the sexiest Miss Hannigan ever. Yes, after Sandra Bullock passed, Nikki Finke of Deadline reports that Diaz is taking over the key villain role in the Jay-Z and Will Smith produced adaptation of the 1977 musical Annie. So this movie is shaping up to have a starry, kind of bizarre cast. 

Diaz is certainly an interesting choice for a role that has been played by the likes of Dorothy Loudon, Carol Burnett, Kathy Bates, and, currently on Broadway, Jane Lynch. Productions have oscillated between casting Miss Hannigan as a washed-up sexpot and, well, a Kathy Bates type. In her big number Little Girls, Hannigan sings: "I'm an ordinary woman / With feelings / I'd like a man to nibble on my ear / But I'll admit no man has bit / So how come I'm the mother of the year?"  Diaz does sexpot well, just in a way that's perhaps more overt than any Miss Hannigan before her. But there may be something to the casting, which Finke called an "inspired choice"—the role is perhaps an ancestor of her Bad Teacher character. 

But can she sing? Miss Hannigan requires a big belt, which in some cases can be faked, but Diaz's most famous musical number involves a particularly bad bit of karaoke in My Best Friend's Wedding; her voice was dubbed for in The Mask. Meanwhile, we've got youngest ever Oscar nominee for Best Actress, Quvenzhané Wallis, in the lead role, Jamie Foxx playing a man who     

Five Best Thursday Columns

Peter Fulham at The New Yorker on the wait for justice Peter Fulham draws a parallel between the posthumous publication of E.M. Forster's Maurice, which grapples with same-sex desire, and the long wait for gay rights, which many of its first supporters did not see fulfilled in their lifetimes. "Maurice is now widely read and taught. ... I remember vividly when I first read it, about a year after I came out, and it served as a hopeful plea from another era: 'Don't give up.' Today's Supreme Court decisions, though far from definitive, are an answer to that plea." At The Dish, Andrew Sullivan adds: "To those who are often tempted to write off America's ability to perfect its union still further, to lead the world in the clarity of its moral and political discourse, and to resist the pull of fundamentalism when it conflicts with human dignity, let me just say: I believe. Because I have seen."

Frank Bruni in The New York Times on the power of the Supreme Court The might of the Supreme Court extends beyond questions of constitutionality, argues Frank Bruni. With their decisions on gay marriage, the court's justices expand our country's potential: "Like all the judgments rendered and statements made by the officials chosen to guide us, the court’s actions set a tone. They send a signal. They alter the climate of what’s considered just and what’s not, of what’s permissible and what’s intolerable, and that change ripples into every last corner of American life, shaping people’s very destinies." For Rich Lowry at Politico, however, this feels like overreach: "Once the high court has declared that the traditional definition is a product of irrational animus, over time it won’t be allowed to stand anywhere. It is Anthony Kennedy's country. We only live in it."

Irin Carmon at Salon on the Democratic Party's abortion platform With the epic filibuster of Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, Irin Carmon says, abortion rights have once again occupied the forefront of the Democratic Party's agenda. "For now, as the fight goes forward, abortion rights are no longer consigned to the back of the Democratic coalition, turned into another way to make Republicans seem like the party of the past," she writes. "Davis is a star, and thousands of Texans are not only furious, they've got the attention of the world." Charles C. W. Cooke at National Review questions any kind of broad appeal beyond firmly pro-choice activists: "Americans in general favor Texas’s bill by 48 percent to 44 percent, with women supporting the measure in greater numbers than men. Sixty-two percent of Texans support 'prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks.' It is not the friends of Texas’s bill that are out on a limb, but its enemies."

Sadhbh Walshe at The Guardian on Texas's death row Sadhbh Walshe considers the practice of capital punishment in the second-largest state, in particular how it intersects with questions of racial discrimination. "The state's very thoughtful, very clear process appears to send black defendants to their deaths far more readily than white ones. This makes the execution of an African-American woman, after rejecting to review her claim that the process that led to her sentencing and conviction was racially biased, an all too fitting way to mark the grim 500 milestone," Walshe writes, referring to the execution of Kimberly McCarthy, who was convicted of killing her neighbor by an all-white jury. "Whether or not the 'ultimate justice' that has been dispensed in this case was actually justice is another matter." Thomas Cahill at CNN adds: "Texas and a handful of other states continue to take their places among such paragons as North Korea, China, Yemen and Iran in the club of those who attempt to administer the death penalty."

Jelani Cobb at The New Yorker on the rise and fall of racial progress "Americans tend to imagine that the racial history of their nation is a steady line sloping upward; in truth, it looks more like an EKG," writes Jelani Cobb, who weighs the Supreme Court's recent decision to undo a portion of the Voting Rights Act. "In that context, it’s unsurprising that a decision hobbling the Voting Rights Act could come in such close proximity to the first Presidential election in which the percentage of eligible voters who went to the polls was higher among blacks than among whites. Peaks in racial progress tend to come in concert with valleys of backlash." Jamelle Bouie at The American Prospect assents: "Many Americans have grown tired of trying to remedy the effects of racism. By striking down Section 4 of the VRA and ignoring the clear words of the Fifteenth Amendment, Roberts is elevating white America’s racial fatigue into constitutional law."

       

Christian Pundits Say They're the Real Victims in the Gay Marriage Fight Now

The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional because, in part, the court found the law was created to express disapproval of a class of citizens: gay couples. But in doing so, the court created a new class of citizens to demonize: conservative Christians. At least, that's according to some conservative commentators and the religious right.

"You will be made to care about gay marriage," RedState editor Erick Erickson writes, despite tweeting yesterday that he really didn't care all that much about the Supreme Court's decision on DOMA. "You must either fully embrace it or be shunned… you will not be allowed to accept that others can disagree on the issue due to their orthodox faith," he says. As Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in his dissent, Erickson thinks gay marriage will come to the states soon. He says, "Once that happens, there will be an even messier culture war designed to treat traditionalism as a noxious notion of a bygone era — the equivalent of Jim Crow." Fox News' Todd Starnes tweeted on Wednesday, "Won't be long before they outlaw the Bible as hate speech." And: "they're going after the preachers next."

Like Erickson, The New York Times' Ross Douthat worries religious objections to gay marriage will come to look like 1960s-style Southern bigotry, unless gay-rights advocates have it in their heart to show some mercy:

Unless something dramatic changes in the drift of public opinion, the future of religious liberty on these issues is going to depend in part on the magnanimity of gay marriage supporters — the extent to which they are content with political, legal and cultural victories that leave the traditional view of marriage as a minority perspective with some modest purchase in civil society, versus the extent to which they decide to use every possible lever to make traditionalism as radioactive in the America of 2025 as white supremacism or anti-Semitism are today.

(It might be worth noting that religious groups still have the right to exclude all kinds of people. Many churches won't marry couples if one partner hasn't converted. Some don't allow divorcees to remain in the church. Some churches don't allow nonbelievers inside their temples.)

Naturally, it was Rush Limbaugh who really clarified the stakes. "The Supreme Court majority, in its ruling, actually uses language that insults and demonizes the people who support marriage as it's been since the beginning of time," Limbaugh said on his radio show. There's an angry mob out there, and they're going to start hunting people down. The hunted are not the usual victims of hate crimes. They're people like Rush and his listeners:

I have often said that what animates people on the left -- what motivates them, what informs them -- is defeating us. No matter how, no matter what, no matter what it means. Their hatred for us overwhelms anything else. No matter the result, victory that includes impugning and demeaning and insulting us is what they seek. It's what makes them happy.

While wallowing in his victimhood, Limbaugh is still shocked at the reversal:

Okay, so here's basically what happens. Everything's going along just fine, everything's cool, and then all of a sudden homosexuals say, "You know what? We want to be married," and the people who don't think that marriage is anything other than a man and a woman said, "No, no, no, no. Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. That's what it means; it's what it's always meant."

So the people who want the change then attack the defenders of the status quo as being hateful bigots, and the Supreme Court took up that argument and made their decision on that basis.

Everything's cool, and then all of a sudden, gay people want to be treated like everyone else. Those gays are such bigots.

       

Marilyn in the Nude, Lolita in the Sun, Martinis in Egypt: Bert Stern's Lost Lens

Bert Stern, who died Tuesday at the age of 83, was perhaps best known for his raw, uninhibited photograph of Marilyn Monroe lounging in a hotel room just six weeks before she died. But many of Stern's lucid, eye-popping images entered the collective consciousness. Stern was called an "original madmen," according to a recent documentary, and Paul Vitello wrote in his New York Times obituary that Stern was "part of a generation of photographers who made clear, clutter-free, arresting images the language of glossy magazine advertising, which until then had mainly used pictures to illustrate text." To remember him, let's look at some of his most iconic images. 

Marilyn, 1962

[image error]

Shot for Vogue magazine, Stern's photos of Marilyn—who poses in various states of undress—are tinged with sadness due to their proximity to her death. Per the Times obit, Stern told Newsday: "I didn't say, 'Pose nude.' It was more one thing leading to another: You take clothes off and off and off and off and off. She thought for a while. I'd say something and the pose just led to itself." In 2008 Stern would recreate recreated the shoot for New York with another troubled starlet: Lindsay Lohan. (Photo via Staley-Wise Gallery) 

Lolita, 1960 

[image error]

Stern shot images like this one for Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Lolita. As Steven Heller wrote in The Atlantic, Stern directly undercut the studio's wishes to downplay the scandalous nature of the subject matter. "Movie posters are rarely more than mediocre sales tools, but Stern could not abide mediocrity," Hell wrote. "What's more, he couldn't resist the temptation to be bad. So, while driving [actress Sue] Lyon to the photo shoot, Stern recalled that he serendipitously found the sunglasses in Woolworths, bought them, put them on Lyons and instantly had the perfect shot—the studio be damned." (Photo via Staley-Wise Gallery)

Martini, 1955 

[image error]

This Smirnoff vodka advertisement was, according to Vitello, the way Stern "made his mark." It was called "the most influential break with traditional advertising photography." (Photo via Christie's)

Jazz on a Summer's Day

Stern's film documenting the 1958 Newport Jazz Festival features performances from the likes of Thelonius Monk and Dinah Washington and has a home in the Library of Congress. 

Twiggy, 1967

[image error]

Stern said his favorite subjects were models, like Twiggy. "What makes a great model is her need, her desire; and it’s exciting to photograph desire," he said. (Photo via the Metropolitan Museum of Art.)

       

The Queen Is Going to Make $58 Million for Being the Queen Next Year

Thanks to a new 5-percent raise, Queen Elizabeth II is expected to rake in a little over $58 million in 2014 — more than Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Tony Parker combined. The British monarch didn't get a stellar performance review or anything, but the Crown Estate, a portfolio with very profitable real estate accounts owned by the royal family, just announced a record profit of £253 million ($386.4 million) and the Queen, thanks to new rules enacted in 2010, gets to take in 15 percent of the gains, The Guardian's Jennifer Rankin reports. Here's more from CNN:

The good news for the nation is that all the profit from the estate is paid into the public coffers. The queen is then paid a grant each year by the Treasury equal to 15% of the profit from two years before.

"Profits were up 5.2% on last year," Rankin explains. That means that in 2014, the Queen will receive "£37.9million (around $58 million US) ... up from £36.1million ($54 million US) this year," The Daily Mail's Matt Chorley writes, adding that it's "the second year running that funding from the taxpayer has gone up." That money gets paid in a Sovereign Grant, and a third of it actually goes to the Queen's staff. The Guardian reported in April:

Around £10m is spent on the salaries of the Queen's staff, from footmen to chefs in the royal kitchen – but wages have been frozen for a number of years. The figure for official expenditure does not include the cost of providing security and police protection for members of the monarchy.

       

Obama Is 'Not Going to Be Scrambling Jets' to Nab Edward Snowden

President Obama said on Thursday that while he is concerned about Edward Snowden and wants to bring the NSA leaker back to America, he's not interested in "wheeling and dealing and trading" to get him extradited. Obama, at the first press conference on his week-long trip to Africa, took questions from the media while in Dakar, Senegal, but naturally everyone wants to talk about the news from home. When asked if he had personally spoken to Vladimir Putin or Xi Jingping, Obama said, "I shouldn't have to" because the case is being handled through the usual diplomatic and legal channels. Although, if the U.S. envoy to Hong Kong is correct,     

New York's Stop-and-Frisk War Has Reached the Breaking Point

At about the moment that New York City marks the five millionth recorded time that its police have stopped and frisked someone — most likely an innocent person of color — the City Council passed a policy to severely curtail the practice. In a dramatic 2 a.m. vote Thursday morning, the Council approved measures to create independent oversight of the police force and to give those affected by the practice legal recourse. The police commissioner and Mayor Bloomberg are not happy.

In a way, the Council merely accelerated the inevitable. The NYPD's practice of confronting and searching people has been the focus of judicial scrutiny for years, prompting both a system for recording the stops (4.98 million of them from the end of 2002 to the end of March) and a civil rights lawsuit. A judgment in that suit is imminent, and would almost certainly have resulted in some sort of oversight mechanism anyway. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice offered to provide a monitor to ensure the department's transition away from the practice.

That may no longer be necessary. The measures passed overnight do two things, as reported by The New York Times.

One, known as Intro 1079, would create an independent inspector general to monitor and review police policy, conduct investigations and recommend changes to the department. The monitor would be part of the city’s Investigation Department alongside the inspectors general for other city agencies. …

The other bill, Intro 1080, would expand the definition of bias-based profiling to include age, gender, housing status and sexual orientation. It also would allow individuals to sue the Police Department in state court — not only for individual instances of bias, but also for policies that disproportionately affect people in any protected categories without serving a significant law enforcement goal.

In every year since 2002, blacks and Latinos have comprised over 80 percent of those stopped and frisked by the NYPD.

Getting the bills passed — and ensuring they'll go into force — required some political machinations. Councilmember Peter Vallone, who told The Times that passage of the bills meant New Yorkers "are going to wake up in a much more dangerous city," refused to allow them out of his public safety committee, forcing Council Speaker Christine Quinn to employ a tactic allowing them to come to the floor. Both measures passed by a more than 2-to-1 vote, meaning that when the mayor vetoes them — which he will — there are enough votes to overturn that veto.

The mayor and his police commissioner, Ray Kelly, will continue to lobby the Council in an effort to reduce that majority. So far, that has meant some remarkably strong language. Each sent letters to the Council stressing their positions; at least one commander of a local precinct sent a similar note to his Councilmember. At a press conference earlier this week, as Capital New York reported, the two lambasted the proposals. Kelly's rhetoric: "Take heart, Al Qaeda wannabes." It is not known how many terror attacks have been halted due to stop-and-frisk. Bloomberg singled out the Inspector General:

Bloomberg said a second bill, creating an inspector general for the NYPD, would allow "gang members to make anonymous complaints" about officers. And "the inspector general would have to review and the NYPD would have to dedicate time and resources to answering the gang members' anonymous complaints."

As Capital New York reporter Azi Paybarah notes, "The mayor suggested anonymous complaints about police offers are not currently investigated."

It was inevitable that the police department at some point be forced to change its practices. How that affects law enforcement effectiveness and morale remains to be seen. But it's hard to argue that modifications coming from the democratically elected members of the City Council are somehow worse than ones mandated by a judge or supplied the federal government.

       

'The Daily Show' Explains Scalia's DOMA Logic

John Oliver celebrated the news out of the Supreme Court yesterday by waving a rainbow flag and singing an adapted version of Les Misérables' "Do You Hear The People Sing?" But he brought on Samantha Bee to explain just what Antonin Scalia was thinking in his dissent.

Bee explained that Scalia doesn't think it's right for the court to strike down a longstanding congressional law. When Oliver chimed in that Scalia helped bring down a key section of the Voting Rights Act just the day before, Bee said: "Like I said this is a firmly held belief of Scalia's that he has held for approximately 36 hours."

She continued, "In his defense there is a substantive difference between the two cases. If you'll permit me some legalese, John: He did not like the Voting Rights Act so he ruled against it, but he did like DOMA so he ruled for it. It's what lawyers call the principal of waaaaaaaah." 

 

       

Rick Perry Revives Abortion Bill, Sets Up a Bigger Showdown with Wendy Davis

A day after a controversial abortion bill was defeated in epic fashion, Texas Governor Rick Perry has brought it back to life, calling for a new special session of the Texas legislature in order to reconsider it. The bill will be on the agenda when the State Legislature reconvenes on July 1, only this time, Wendy Davis and her fellow liberals will have a much tougher time stopping it from becoming law.

The bill — which bans all abortions after 20 weeks or pregnancy and enacts tough new restrictions on clinics —  was defeated when time ran out the last special session, thanks mostly to Davis and her 13-hour-long filibuster on Tuesday. (By law, special sessions must end after 30 days and may only address specific agenda items.) Opponents had managed to keep the bill off the floor during the regular legislative session earlier in the year, but the unique rules of the special session allowed it to come to vote.

It's highly unlikely that Democrats will be able to defeat the bill entirely this time, but this next round of fighting will be more about setting the stage for a larger future battle between Perry and Davis. It has been speculated for years that the State Senator from Fort Worth might be a future candidate for governor and she's made no effort to shut that talk down.  While appearing on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes" last night, Davis said she "would be lying if I told you I did not have aspirations." 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Both she and Perry are up for re-election in 2014, and after her performance this week she may never have a better opportunity to step up to statewide office. (She might actually have a better shot than if she simply ran for Senate again, since her last two races were very close and Republicans are likely to target her seat.) Not only has she created a new national (and international) profile that will be able to draw in huge donations and powerful friends, she managed to make her cause about more than just abortion, but also about the heavy-handed tactics and outsized power of the state's Republicans. She is the cause to fight for now.

Then there's Perry, who was looking so strong two years ago that he decided to give the Presidency a shot — and then flamed out miserably. His flaws as a politician were exposed for the whole world, and the liberals who would like to see him defeated will definitely smell blood in the water now that they've found a worthy opponent for him. They've already seized on the fact that he announced the special session on the grounds that "In Texas, we value all life," on the same day the state conducted its 500th execution.

If Davis decides to challenge him, the race would create ripple effects far beyond Texas and the South. Taking the Texas governorship back for the party would be a huge win for Democrats everywhere, and she would not lack for support and publicity. Whether she get the votes or not is another story, but a Perry-Davis showdown would be instantly become the most talked about and most hotly contested race of the next campaign cycle.

       

Chaos in Texas as Abortion Filibuster Leads to Disputed Midnight Vote

Update: 3:30 a.m.: Reports out of the statehouse (unconfirmed at the moment) now say that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has conceded that the vote took place after midnight, and will not count. If so, the bill is dead, at least for now. (Republicans are free to try and revive it in the next legislative session.)

The #WendyDavis text to #CecileRichards announcing #SB5 Dead! ;-) #StandwithWendy #UniteBlueTX pic.twitter.com/YaQUbhrFDp

— Turn Texas Blue (@UniteBlueTX) June 26, 2013

Update Wednesday, 2:20 a.m.: Did the Texas State Senate pass a restrictive abortion bill before their midnight deadline on Tuesday night? Depends on who you ask! That's more or less the take on the chaotic scene in the Texas state legislature on Tuesday evening after Senator Wendy Davis's marathon filibuster attempt. 

First, a recap: On Tuesday, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis attempted a 13-hour filibuster in the State Senate to prevent a vote on a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks in Texas. The bill needed to come to a vote before the special legislative session reached its midnight deadline. If Davis was still talking — thereby preventing a vote — at that time, the bill would expire, effectively delaying any action on the measure. And while Davis's filibuster was halted 2 hours before that deadline, midnight came and went, seemingly without a vote, thanks to a series of parliamentary inquiries from Democratic Senators, and later, from sustained cheering from the gallery. But then, apparently, the Texas GOP gave themselves an extension. 

Despite accounts from reporters and Democrats in the room (not to mention those watching the livestream), who saw the vote begin after the midnight deadline, the abortion bill officially passed on time, according to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and therefore the Associated Press.

But many reporters on the scene seem reluctant to agree: 

Senate now voting to approve SB5. It's after midnight. Chaos continues in Senate #txlege

— Statesmanmike (@mikestatesman) June 26, 2013

Even many Senators seemed unsure about the status of the bill: 

Add'l context: Reporters on the Senate floor are just walking up to senators and asking them if #SB5 passed. They really don't know. #txlege

— EricaGrieder (@EricaGrieder) June 26, 2013

While the Texas State Senate's site appears to show the final vote on the bill happening on June 26 — after midnight: 

[image error]

Minutes after The Atlantic Wire took a screenshot of the Senate's website, the record of the vote changed the dates to 6/25. We're not sure if that's the same record cited here or not: 

For what its worth, official computer records the vote on 6/25/2013. That may end up deciding constitutionality #txlege #sb5

— ChrisTomlinson (@cltomlinson) June 26, 2013

Democrats circulated a similar set of records to reporters on the scene: 

Docs from Hinojosa showing time change on #SB5 vote pic.twitter.com/ndcLC6X1Mp

— Becca Aaronson (@becca_aa) June 26, 2013

While legislators managed to delay the vote for over an hour after Davis's filibuster was halted, it's the scene 15 minutes before the midnight deadline that will clearly be the most memorable of the evening: Senator Leticia Van De Putte asked the Senate chair why her motion to adjourn was not recognized before the roll call vote on the bill began. "At what point must a female senator raise her hand and her voice to be recognized by her male colleagues?" she said, prompting the crowd in the gallery to erupt in cheers that lasted for the remaining 15 minutes, taking the chamber past the deadline. The Senate was unable to regain order in the room until several minutes after midnight. 

In any case, as things stand now, Republicans are saying the bill passed just before the deadline, while pretty much everyone else is saying that it didn't, though some media reports are acknowledging the Lieutenant Governor's call that it passed on time. So the question now is whether the vote will stand in either the short or long term, something Democrats have already vowed to challenge. It looks like we'll have to wait to see how this mayhem shakes out. 

Update: 11:53 p.m. Two hours before the end of a special session in the Texas legislation, State Republicans ended State Senator Wendy Davis's filibuster of a proposed 20-week abortion ban when the Senate chair ruled that Davis had committed her third violation — speaking about an existing sonogram law while addressing the effect of the abortion bill on the state's women. That topic, apparently, was not germane to the debate (current law requires a woman seeking an abortion to have a sonogram 24 hours before the procedure, while the doctor describes and displays the images). But the effort to prevent a vote on the bill isn't over yet. 

Democrats appealed the decision, resulting in a series of time-using parliamentary inquiries, which were ongoing with just a little over an hour before the end of the session — meaning that the Senate still isn't guaranteed to vote on the bill. While the appeal process went on, Davis remained standing: 

#txlege primer Chaos ensues when senators play parliamentary games, they rarely do it. @WendyDavisTexas not sitting, just in case #sb5

— ChrisTomlinson (@cltomlinson) June 26, 2013

Davis's two previous violations were for breaking procedure when she was handed a back brace, and for a second "non-germane" point of order.  Davis was attempting to speak until the end of a special session at midnight tonight, in order to prevent a vote on the abortion bill. As the third point of order was sustained, the crowded gallery broke into shouts, eventually settling into a loud chant of "let her speak!" 

Heading to the Capitol now to interview all those ppl who erupted in anger when the #filibuster ended. Look how many pic.twitter.com/PpL7nuFbiv

— Kris Betts (@KrisB_KVUE) June 26, 2013

At least some of the crowd was escorted out of the gallery, resulting in a sit in: 

Rt @KitOConnell: A sit in has already begun in the Capitol rotunda! #yal #sb5 pic.twitter.com/jvAwpfKaNP

— Elana_Brooklyn (@Elana_Brooklyn) June 26, 2013

Davis's filibuster didn't go unnoticed: 

Something special is happening in Austin tonight: http://t.co/RpbnCbO6zw #StandWithWendy

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) June 26, 2013

Over 100,000 people were tuned into the Texas Tribune's livestream of the proceedings at around 11:30 p.m.

Original Post: Texas State Senator Wendy Davis may or may not be able to stop a controversial anti-abortion bill from becoming law, but she's not going to let it get through without a fight. Davis took the floor of Senate chamber on Tuesday — armed with a pair of comfortable pink sneakers — and will attempt to filibuster the bill, which would ban all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and create onerous new restrictions that would force all but five of the state's 42 abortion clinics to shut down.

The special legislative session currently in progress will end tonight at midnight, whether she is still talking or not. So if Davis can hold out for just under 13 hours (she began talking at 11:18 a.m. local time) she can prevent a vote and effectively kill the entire bill, since Governor Rick Perry would have to call another special 30-day session for it to be reintroduced. Earlier this year, Rand Paul held the floor of the U.S. Senate for 12 hours and 52 minutes in an attempt to block John Brennan's appointment to CIA director.

The leadership may not want to listen to TX women, but they will have to listen to me. I intend to filibuster this bill. #SB5 #txlege

— Wendy Davis (@WendyDavisTexas) June 25, 2013

The bill, which was passed first by the House of Representatives, got national attention this week when the bill's Republican sponsor suggested that rape kits can prevent pregnancy because a "woman can get cleaned out." Opponents of the bill argue that some of the provisions (like the 20-week ban) are unconstitutional, but could still be passed and require a lengthly legal challenge to strike it down. It's become one of the most contentious state fights in recent memory, with supporters on both sides filling the galleries for the last week.

Just like the U.S. Senate, Davis can hold the floor as long as she doesn't sit down and doesn't stop talking. (She can also take extended questions from other Senators, without yielding control, but must remain standing.) In order to help fill out the time, Davis solicited stories about abortion and women's health care so that she could read them aloud during her speech.

PIC: @WendyDavisTexas standing in pink sneakers has begun her 12hr filibuster of #SB5 over #abortion. #txlege http://t.co/azUmFABofj

— Jason Whitely (@JasonWhitely) June 25, 2013

The session is being live streamed on YouTube (via the The Texas Tribune) and you can watch it below. WFAA is keeping a countdown clock on its website to indicate how much time is left until the session ends.