More than that. At least in part, the Catholic Church's position is because one of the #vaccines in question - rubella - is against an infection that targets the unborn in particular. Fighting against the vaccine's use risks bringing back rubella, which kills and harms newborns.
-
-
Your interlocutor may not have considered its support for the bill through. Here is a pro-life view on the use of these
#vaccines.https://rationalcatholicblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/you-can-be-the-pro-life-parent-of-a-fully-vaccinated-child/ …2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Again, we don't take a position on their use, but people should be informed. Is there any reason to stop people from being informed other than deceiving them into doing something they would object to if they had proper informed consent?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon
It's pretty easy to get that information. The language of the bill is not designed to inform, but to cause an emotional response and scare people away. If it wanted to inform, it would add an explanation on cell lines. It's not. We both know this bill is designed to deter.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It's not easy, and a lot of people have to look online. Besides us, where else might they get that information??? Is that where you want people finding the information, when their doctors give them inaccurate information about the issue?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon
Yes, it is easy. A very easy google search would raise it, and practically every basic book about
#vaccines addresses it. And the assumption that doctors are actively misleading people on this is a little strange.1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
That's what happening. Here's an experiment: ask 10 family practice doctors and nurses "was this vaccine created using abortion?" See if you get a medically-accurate tale about Dr. Leonard Hayflick, or, "That's not true." We get a lot of calls on this...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon
I would agree that doctors should be upfront about cell lines. A misleading, emotionally manipulative bill is a poor way to do it. This bill is pretty clearly, again, directed at scaring people away. Making rubella - that harms the unborn - great again is not a good goal for you.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
How would you write such a bill? Please, if you have great language to amend it with to specify how the MDHHS carries it out, we'd be happy to do it, all of our bills go through that process.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well, they've already admitted to working with antivaccine groups (but only on this issue). I bet they did write a lot of the bill.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.