But by taking a fact and trying to twist it into some quasi-religious anti-vax conspiracy, you are the one harming your own health policy goals. You're caricaturing yourself to exactly the sort of people you wish cared about the facts.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I have a bachelor's degree in American Public Policy from Western Michigan University.
6 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @VegarOttesen
So you're not a doctor, not a scientist, not an immunologist, not a biologist. Understood.
1 reply 2 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @VegarOttesen
There are plenty of medical professionals involved in our organization. But that's not the point, you're stuck with arguing about degrees and the finer points of the definition of "derived," because you don't want to just say "people don't have a right to know."
7 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
This isn't about people having a right to know. It's about legislating the doctor patient relationship, telling people one piece of misleading information, and hoping it will prevent them from getting vaccinated. (1)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @H_SalemOaks @Right_to_Life and
If you would like this information available to people with strongly held beliefs there are other ways. For one, you could create resources yourself. If this was really about the right to know you could tell people the whole story and let them decide. (2)
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Oh, it's not at all about the "right to know." If it was, the language in the bill wouldn't be so deceptive and emotive.
@doritmi suggested less emotive and more accurate language. Anyone wanna bet whether RTL will push the bill's sponsors to adopt it? It won't.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @H_SalemOaks and
How is "derived from aborted fetal tissue" emotive? Again, the bill does not say how doctors or nurses have to explain it to patients, that's a legal definition. Do you not trust doctors and nurses to explain this to their own patients?
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon and
Please. Now you're being insincere. You know very well that's emotive language. And you should know by now it's also misleading. The bill requires providers to say things that are misleading, emotionally manipulative to their patients.
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
What disturbs me the most is that @Right_to_Life has admitted to working with "vaccine choice" (translation: antivaccine) activists in crafting this bill. In this, RTL is directly furthering a major goal of antivaxers.
-
-
We protect the conscience rights of everyone. Even if someday you needed help protecting your conscience rights on some other issue, say euthanasia, we'd be happy to do that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon and
Misleading people does not protect - or respect - their conscience rights. This bill would do that. A bill seeking to just inform would be phrased very differently.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.