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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon
You could write: "Some of the viruses in life-saving
#vaccines used are grown on cell-line descendant from elective abortions (performed for other reasons) in the 1960s. In order to allow parents to make an informed decision, and choose alternatives where exist, here is a list."3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
That's not objectionable, but again, what the MDHHS issues as guidance is not going to be the legislative language. Your example is not legislative language, but we can pass your wording along as suggestions for implementation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon
The current language of the bill is emotionally manipulative, and does not reflect what cell lines are. You actually do need to change the bill to better reflect the above, including what you're requiring providers to say. As is, it's designed to manipulate, not inform.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I would add that if you're aiming for full information on pro-life consequences, including the dangers of the diseases - including dangers to the unborn - needs to be a part, too.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Indeed. The rubella vaccine prevents abortion due to congenital rubella.
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.