Texas Senate Republicans Pass Sonogram Bill

You are assuming quite a bit. In my practice as a family doctor, I'm used to translating from jargon to common terms that my patients understand. Furthermore , as a woman of a certain age and one who has had a couple of babies and one miscarriage (how many have you had, Sir?), I am also accustomed to thinking about the child in utero (medical jargon for in the uterus or pre-born) as a "baby."

Besides - didn't you see Representative Speiers talk about the baby she lost due to miscarriage while arguing on the floor of the House?

In your research about me (google goes both ways so I'm not threatened), where have you found that I make a religious argument against abortion? I wouldn't do that anymore than you would make an argument that real estate laws were pertinent to anti-slavery laws. The fact is that people are people, regardless of age, stage, race, or location.  My usual explanation is the factual acknowledgment that these are our children, members of our species and that if you break the egg of a bird on the Endangered Species Act, no one questions whether you killed an eagle or a pelican, even if it was an embryo or fetus that couldn't survive outside the egg.

Doctor, once again, your ham-handed attempt to build a straw man shows the desperation of your position.  Not having a uterus doesn't make me less able to see through your weak position, and my support for women's reproductive rights puts me at odds with you and your religious agenda.  Further, we're certainly not talking about the Endangered Species Act (which, I suspect, you don't support either): you'll try anything to confuse the situation.

Your support of a law requiring doctors to show - and forcing women to watch - live ultrasound images of their fetus is NOT, as you disingenuously claim, to enhance informed consent, but rather it is designed to discourage women from having an abortion.  It's one thing to use your First Amendment right to try to influence others' actions: it's quite another to legislate that someone else do it for you.

Women who decide, for whatever reason, to end a pregnancy have already carefully considered their decision.  They do not need Big Brother (in this case, bible-thumping white men in the legislature) deciding what's best for them.  Nor, I'm sure, would you want Texas law enforcement investigating your miscarriage to determine if something you did, or didn't do, contributed to the loss.  In your worldview, apparently even a zygote is a person: perhaps there should be a police investigation to rule out manslaughter and child abuse.

Yes, I did see the Congresswoman's speech.  What do you think her opposition to Republican defunding of Planned Parenthood has to do with this?  More distraction.

Doctor, you and your ilk will not be satisfied until legal abortion is outlawed in this country and desperate women are forced back into back alleys.  It's the objective of the anti-choice movement, spearheaded by religious fundimentalists like yourself.  While you are certainly free to practice your faith, imposing that faith on others is Un-American, and Un-Constitutional.  Don't hide behind Hippocrates - that oath applies to your actions, and no one is compelling you to perform abortions.

Dr. Nuckols, you are awesome! Great points.

My "ilk" has had a baby growing within. Many of us learned to speak before Roe v. Wade. Like Congresswoman Speier, we naturally call that baby a "baby," no matter how intolerant some people are of that usage.
Watch Texas GOP Vote for a longer response.

Do you have a problem with the word "ilk"?  Your condescending tone is not appreciated.  I too learned how to speak long before 1973.  Along with the Right to speak comes the responsibility for your choice of words, and you chose the word "baby" for a reason - your non-denial is further proof of your intellectual dishonesty. 

The First Amendment protects religion from government and government from religion.  It also protects the non-religious from religious zealots hell-bent on making religious law the law of the land.  Conservatives embrace this tenet when if comes to Islam and Sharia Law, but when it comes to Biblical Law, Christian fundimentalists (such as you and your Christian Medical Association) are willfully blind to the hypocrisy of your position.  (Ironically, American fundimentalist Christians - I'd bet real money you're among them - support the death penalty, despite the biblical prohibition against killing.)  The United States (yes, Texas too) is a Constitutional Republic.  If you prefer to live in a Christian theocracy, you're in the wrong country. 

Doctor, have the personal integrity and the strength of your convictions to admit that this is really about Christians imposing Christian dogma on non-Christians.  And please don't think you're going to have the last word on this.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}

Mr. McFarley,

Your emotions color your assumptions. However you attempt to stereotype me, the only arguments I use in these discussions are historic and scientific evidence (See “The Most Dangerous Place.” http://texasgopvote.com/restore-families/sanctity-life/most-dangerous-place-002566 ) and examples of common experiences such as clarification of terms, including “ilk.”

I am a Christian and active in the Christian Medical Association, yes. I was also active for years in the Libertarians for Life e-list, have corresponded on-line with the Atheists and Agnostics for Life and defended PLAGAL when they wished carry their banner in the National March for Life, was an invited speaker at a Texas Democrats for Life convention, and am a current member of Feminists for Life. And Representative Speiers and I are of the ilk described in the earlier post.

In contrast, all we know of you is that you have very, very strong emotions about abortion, deem some humans as not human enough to live, assume motives and stereotype those who disagree with you and that you find it important to “have the last word.” We still don’t know how you feel about Texas’ informed consent laws for hysterectomy, radiation therapy, and electric shock therapy.

 

Christian dogma guides your views.  Constitutional principles and logic guide mine.

I will never need an abortion, and I don't need to decide for others whether one is right for them.  I do not believe that a zygote or a fetus is a person deserving of the same consideration and rights as a pregnant woman.  We both know that this bad law is designed by a Christian legislator, and supported by Christian fundimentalists, to make it more expensive, difficult, embarrassing, and traumatic for pregnant women to excercise their right to reproductive choice.  It is not about informed consent - if it was, it would be offered, not imposed on both physician and patient.  This is not about hysterectomies, radiation therapy, and electric shock therapy nor any of the thousand procedures you keep using to obfuscate.  It is about forcing women to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound and subjecting them to emotional manipulation because Christians believe in the "miracle of conception."  It's wrong.  It's un-American.  It's un-Constitutional. 

You may be a competant doctor, and you may even be a good Christian (if pride and dishonesty are virtues), but you are a bad American.  This law un-Constitutional, anti-woman law will not stand.