Programa médico-arquitectónico

Davis’s filibuster not only garnered identification, empathy, and deliberation, it had other effects. On the floor, Davis’s opponents realized she might be able to filibuster until midnight. They swarmed, raising points of order and claiming she was speaking on information non- germane to SB5. The first point of order was raised by Senator Nichols, after Davis mentioned the funding of Planned Parenthood. Nichols asked, “Mr. President, under Rule 4.03, is the budget germane to this bill?”551 _{Davis protested, but after consulting with the expert parliamentarian,} Chair Dewhurst said, “I don’t think . . . the funding of Planned Parenthood is germane to this debate.”552 _{Davis got her first warning.}

Twitter supporters immediately reacted to the point of order. One wrote, “I'm about to rage about the germaneness of your face, Senator Nichols.”553 _{At this late hour, netizens were} passed identification and empathy, deliberation and judgment, now they tried to defend Davis. The urge to defend her and participate led some netizens to do more than Tweet. Some began to participate from afar with their money.

549 _{Mardoll 2014, location 1827-1844.} 550 _{Gustafson, 2011, 13.}

551 _{Mardoll 2014, location 2238.} 552 _{Mardoll 2014, location 2255.}

553 _{Jenna Lowenstein @just_jenna 25 Jun 2013; another yelled at Nichols, “POINT OF ORDER YOUR FACE.”}

Supporters began to purchase items in support of Davis and the cause. This included purchasing pink shoes, orange shirts, and food for the protestors at the Capitol. Davis’s pink Mizuno shoes became instantly-iconic, and netizens Tweeted info about how to buy them: “For all [those] backing @WendyDavisTexas today in the #txlege: here's the shoes . . .”554 _Others began to Tweet photos of their shoes at the hashtag #shoesforwendy (Fig. 4).

Figure 4: Davis's Filibuster Shoes

Figure 5: Appeal for solidarity

In addition to shoes, those attending the rally bought shirts in University of Texas orange.555 _The shirts were in response to appeals by legislators and Planned Parenthood for an “orange out,” or filling the gallery with supporters in orange (Fig. 5). This orange feminist army, like all armies,

554 _{Adam Harris @aharris75 25 Jun 2013. For all [those] backing @WendyDavisTexas today in the #txlege: here's}

the shoes http://www.mizunousa.com/running/products/mizuno-womens-wave-musha-4-running-shoes ….”

555 _{Don Simpson @thatdonsimpson. “Off to buy my first orange shirt & head to TX Senate to witness the remaining}

ran on its stomach, and soon netizens began to buy food for protestors at the capitol.556 _{“I just} donated $10 to . . . help feed the #feministarmy in TX . . . Keep up the fight!” (Fig. 6).557

Figure 6: Netizens becoming protestors

Figure 7: From netizens to protestors

While netizens supported the protestors by buying food, two of Davis’s colleagues on the floor attempted to help her in practical ways. Senator Kirk Watson (D) assisted Davis

deliberatively, and Senator Rodney Ellis (D) assisted her physically. Watson helped give Davis’s voice a rest by asking lengthy, friendly questions. Adhering to this form of pseudo-deliberation, Watson proceeded to ask Davis ten long-form questions about the Roe v. Wade; after each

556 _{Erik Vidor @ErikVidor Austin, TX “The angels even sent ranch dressing for the chicken strips.” 25 Jun 2013.}

Tweet. See Figure 6.

lengthy question Davis merely answered, “Correct.”558 _{Eventually the opposition caught on that} Watson was letting Davis rest and raised a point of order. After Watson got a warning for speaking about Roe v. Wade,559 _{he resumed his friendly questioning. But limited to SB5, he ran} out of questions after about thirty minutes. Thus, a Senator who’d been roused to action due to his empathy for Davis’s suffering had failed in his attempt provide extended relief.

Another colleague went beyond empathetic deliberation to empathetic action. The empathetic action was taken by Senator Rodney Ellis who asked if Davis could re-read the citizen testimonies from earlier in the day without violating the rule that “prohibits repetitious remarks.”560 _{This question alluded to Ellis’s desire to play games, and it annoyed the opposition.} Furthermore, while Ellis was asking about re-reading, he brought her and helped her put on a back brace. Although this was a wonderfully supportive action from one perspective, it also put the filibuster in peril because it is against the rules to “assist” the speaker physically.561 _Already annoyed by Ellis, the opposition quickly called for a point of order. After a forty-minute debate about the back brace, Davis was given a second warning.562 _{The empathetic-deliberation of} friendly questioning, the appeal to re-read citizen testimonies, and the empathetic action of assisting with a back brace put the filibuster on the brink of death. There seemed to be little that could be done from the floor to prolong Davis’s stand. The vultures were circling.

Meanwhile, among the mediated audience, the soft money of purchasing clothing and food became the hard money of political campaign contributions. The pertinent information was

558 _{Mardoll 2014, location 2284-2318.}

559 _{At first Dewhurst ruled, “That’s the second warning,” but Davis disputed, “I’m not sure that’s the second}

warning, under the rule, because it’s not a warning to me, the speaker.” 559 _{Dewhurst quickly retracted, and said,}

“I’m not calling you on a warning,” and awarded the warning to Watson. See Mardoll 2014, location 2354.

560 _{Mardoll 2014, location 2628.} 561 _{Mardoll 2014, location 2646.} 562 _{Mardoll 2014, location 2645-2896.}

dispersed: “If out of state . . . there are 5 great places to donate: http://bit.ly/17d6Bu3.”563 Netizens, such as Winona, responded: “Just donated $50 to Wendy Davis.”564 _{Winona was not} alone. In response to her filibuster, Davis gathered a total of nearly $1 million from 15,290 different citizen contributions.565 _{As these donations demonstrate, the filibuster garnered}

measurable effects as netizens put their money where their month was and donations where their ideology was. However, when Rand Paul attempted to use his filibuster in the late spring of 2015 to raise money for his presidential campaign, he did not receive a similar outpouring of financial support.566 _{Paul recognized that Davis had altered the form and opened it up to social media} interaction and political donations. However, Paul did not involve citizens by reading

testimonies, and as a result, those libertarians who identified with his cause did not move from identification to participation, as did Davis’s supporters.