TMA opposes sonogram bill?
Wendy Davis just read a letter from the Texas Medical Association opposing the sonogram bill as a violation of the patient-doctor relationship. Dan Patrick is claiming there is no patient- doctor relationship, based on the testimony of Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee profiled by Texas Monthly.
Under questioning from John Whitmire, Patrick says that his assertion that there is no patient-doctor relationship is based on testimony from Planned Parenthood. I think he is describing Abby Johnson’s testimony, not Planned Parenthood’s.
Patrick says the TMA was neutral on the bill, but the letter read sounded negative to me. Patrick makes the point that TMA did not
testify against the bill.
Whitmire talks about women who have been abandoned by family and boyfriends and says Patrick’s bill is creating more pain and hardship. Patrick responds: “I dismiss that” the bill creates a hardship.
Patrick: what would you say if all those aborted souls were in our gallery right now?
Karen says:
Aborted souls?
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Yeah, we all know that babies aren’t babies until their mom says they are. That’s why when you see a pregnant woman you should always ask her how her fetus is doing. Abortion doesn’t stop a beating heart, it’s just a routine medical procedure like removing a cancerous growth. If you think otherwise you are evil and anti-woman.
Reply »
Karen Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Yep, people like you want to save the fetus yet kill the child. Where is all that concern after the woman has her baby? Then you call that same woman and baby leeches on society.
Reply »
JFK's Ghost Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Karen, well said! I have always wondered why the right wingers quit caring about kids after they are born. For example, look at their rush to cut Pre K now because they believe those kids are a burden on society. I am so sick of their hypocritical nonsense. When will 50% plus one of the voting population say enough to this nonsense? The state is on fire right now with the $27 billion budget shortfall, but these bozos are focusing on a sonogram bill.
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 8:40 am
People like me? We don’t even know me. I’ve never called any baby a leech on society and I’ve done a great deal to support those in need. The real question here is not where life begins, but where love begins. If you believe that life begins at conception and love that life as an unborn baby you will do everything you can to protect it. If you view it as just a piece of garbage or trash then you think having an abortion is just like having a tooth pulled and is no big deal. There will never be common ground on that issue.
Harold Cook Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
yes, clearly life begins at conception – and ends at birth.
Childhood immunizations? Cut.
Pre-K? Cut
Public Ed? Cut
Prenatal care for pregnant women? Cut
Accessible health care for kids? Cut
Nursing home funding? Cut
Spare me the lectures on how pro-life you are.
Red says:
The souls weren’t what were aborted, were they? I’m really confused by a lot of this pro-life schtick…it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Yeah, the difference between life and death sure is hard to figure out.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Well, the kids are the responsibility of the parents and not the pro-lifers. Its very simple. Its the pro-lifers responsibility to ensure life, even at the earliest stage, is protected.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I agree. The pro-life crowd becomes harder and harder to follow….and angrier and less logical. Seems they are moving me towrds the pro choice side.
Reply »
jim in austin says:
Yes, the Aborted Infant Soul gallery is just to the left and slightly behind the Executed in the Texas Prison System gallery. Seating is at a premium…
Reply »
JFK's Ghost Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Jim, where will the souls who die from 30% cuts to Medicaid this session sit? Good thing the Republicans made that an emergency item like they did the sonogram bill. Oh wait, they didn’t – Bring on the Republican Death Panels!
Reply »
Howie says:
One fertilized egg is not a person. There are those who would disagree, but I would believe they are in a small minority.
A fetus one day before birth is. Everyone, besides an even smaller minority, agrees on that.
We’re just arguing about where to draw the line.
And don’t let anyone tell you this isn’t about abortion. It’s ALL about abortion.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Howie> We’re just arguing about where to draw the line.
Incorrect. Many of the arguments presented and relied upon in the crucial Roe v Wade decision found favor in permitting an abortion even granting personhood at the moment of conception.
Reply »
Karen Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
So I guess you are opposed to contraceptives too?
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Karen> So I guess you are opposed to contraceptives too?
No. Thank Deity for Griswold v Connecticut, because women (and by extension, all of society) were being terribly oppressed by the lack of legal widespread contraception before 1965.
Whoops, there goes my sarcasm filter. Sorry about that.
anita says:
How is there not a patient-doctor relationship? Under what theory? If the doctor is advising the patient, or providing any services whatsoever, how is there not a patient-doctor relationship? I can certainly understand TMA’s concern — it’s a slippery slope when you start legislating how a doctor must counsel a patient.
Reply »
Tim says:
Sure. Let’s make sure to make abortions harder to obtain in the same session where we’re cutting Medicaid to children, and foster care service for children, and food assistance for children, and education funds for children. Is anyone supposed to believe he gives one whiff about children?
This is why people believe this is about reducing the rights of women and not about saving children. Because the Republican track record is pretty clear that they’re openly hostile towards the welfare of children.
Reply »
Karen says:
Actually, they try to push these young women into giving(sell) their babies up for adoption.(buy)
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Joe Pojman doesn’t care about this bill. If it passes he won’t be able to raise any money. He needs something he can use to stay in business and use on scorecards.
Reply »
Rog says:
Nothing to worry about. Since the abstinence only program in Texas is working so well, no unwanted pregnancies, no need for abortions. Problem solved. And I know this is true because our Governor says abstinence worked for him.
“Abstinence works,” said Governor Perry during a televised interview with Evan Smith of The Texas Tribune.
“But we have the third highest teen pregnancy rate among all states in the country,” Smith responded.
“It works,” insisted Perry.
“Can you give me a statistic suggesting it works?” asked Smith.
“I’m just going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works,” said Perry, doggedly.
Reply »
anita says:
If Patrick only got 21 votes to suspend, which R’s crossed over to vote against? I’m assuming he got Lucio, Uresti and Zaffirini . . .
Reply »
Karen says:
How many teen mothers are keeping their babies?
Teen Pregnancy Stats
“96% of teen mothers keep their babies.
In Texas, a baby is born to a teen mother every 10 minutes.
Texas is #3 in teen births
Dallas is #1 in repeat teen births”
more info here: http://www.alleyshouse.org/tnpreg.htm
Reply »
Plain Spoken says:
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).
Reply »
JFK's Ghost Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Plain Spoken: since you are into legislating literal interpretations of Bible versus, will you also be pushing for legislation of the Bible verse below? Come on, don’t be a hypocrite!!! Who will be your House and Senate sponsors oh holier than others?
Exodus 21:20-21 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
Reply »
anita Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Well played, sir.
Reply »
José Reply:
February 19th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Psalm 139 is a beautiful piece of scripture but it does not support the “life begins at conception” premise. In fact it asserts otherwise. Taken literally it says that the knitting together of a human occurs in the womb, well after the point of conception.
Then again, maybe Plain Spoken doesn’t really believe the Holy Word of God, especially if it conflicts with his or her preconceived notions.
Reply »
Karen says:
Plain Spoken,
Has the thought ever crossed your mind that not everyone in U.S. shares your religious beliefs? Your religious beliefs should not be legislated.
Reply »
Cow Droppings Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
yeah, let’s not legislate morality. For instance, while your religious or ethical code may say murder is wrong, mine is ambivalent. So, let’s get rid of prison sentences.
Reply »
Jane Roe says:
You can legislate morality if you define morality as right and wrong, if the killing of innocent, defenseless human life is wrong. You can be agnostic and still believe that.
And aborted souls? I knew that we could one day turn Patty around.
Remember, being pro-abortion sucks the life out of you.
Reply »
Karen says:
Religion and morality are not the same thing.
No one is pro-abortion.
Remember, being pro-life without providing financial support to the mothers with unplanned pregnancies sucks the life out of them; mother and child.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 8:48 am
NARAL Pro-Choice America is pro-abortion. They view it as just another medical procedure. They even defend partial birth abortion and abortion mills like the one recently exposed in Philadelphia.
Does it not bother anyone that Margaret Sanger and her ilk saw abortion as a way to cut down on undesirable races and the poor? She believed strongly in eugenics.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Amendment 1, Constitution of the United States of America
Reply »
Morning After says:
I would say to all those baby souls, “Hey, if you die as a fetus, in Heaven are you a normal size or do you have to stay fetus size?”
Because I think it’d be pretty unfair to be in Heaven and be a tiny fetus while everyone else is tall.
Reply »
night before Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
No kidding! It’d probably make getting a date nigh on impossible…
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Good grief Morning After.
Reply »
Morning After says:
Right! You’d be all tiny trying to ask out Rue McClanahan when, oh, here comes Heath Ledger and he’s all like, “Hey Rue, Jesus just invited me to check out this awesome sunset he just made…wanna come along?” But she doesn’t notice you and you’re all like, “Arrgh, not again, Heath! I hate this!”
Reply »
anita says:
The most disturbing part of today’s discussion was Sen. Patrick’s references to members supporting his bill as “Godly men”, more than implying that he believes he speaks for God, and the strong inference of the corrollary — that those opposing are doing the devil’s work.
It’s scary when a legislative body in a democracy bases its actions upon imposing “God’s” will on the public. What happens when someone else’s interpretation of God’s will becomes in favor — would you want that imposed upon you?
Reply »
Jane Roe says:
Sorry Karen, when you choose to be irresponsible with your body and have an unplanned pregancy it doesn’t give you the right to kill, nor does it mean society is obligated to support you financially.
But with adoption, there are thousands of couples who have helped mother get through a pregancy. How can being “pro-life” suck the life out of a child when want to preven them from being born?
Reply »
Karen Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Jane Roe,
Giving the woman one choice–Adoption–is not choice.
Adoption agencies are big business.
OPEN ADOPTION = Open Lies
http://www.exiledmothers.com/open_adoption/
Reply »
Karen Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
So you believe married women who become pregnant(unplanned pregnancy) while they are on birth control or after they have had a bilateral tubal ligation are being irresponsible with their bodies?
Yes, I do believe a poor young teen mother should be supported; both financially and emotionally by society. It is in the best interests of society to do so as this will break the cycle.
http://www.alleyshouse.org/
Reply »
anita Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
How can you blame a woman in the case of rape and incest — how is that woman being “irresponsible with her body”?
If a woman is raped by a family member, is ashamed and doesn’t report it to the police, then discovers a month or six weeks later that she’s pregnant, she’s forced to relive the horror of that experience by the terms of this bill. Please explain to us how she’s been “irresponsible with her body”.
Reply »
KO Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Oh sure, there are so many loving homes that want children. What about all the foster children whose parental rights have been terminated that are eligible for adoption, but no one wants them because they are older and minority? Put your morals on those kiddos first, them we can talk about the the unborn.
Reply »
Karen says:
BTW, I posted a comment that is in moderation probably because of several links. Are you aware that parental consent is required in many states for a minor to obtain an abortion but no parental consent is required for a minor to give her baby up for adoption? Amazing!
Reply »
geographylady says:
bringing on a late period is not a new thing – it is older than recorded history. In every culture women have known what herbs to use to make their menses commence if they were late.
Think of all the remedies from the late 1800s – “Dr. X’s women’s Remedy” was totally an abortifacient.
It only became a problem after men became “doctors” and took over the care of women.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The most common argument I hear from the “pro-choice” side of the aisle to their pro-life opponents is: “If you don’t want abortion don’t get one” (people should make their own choice even if you are personally opposed to it). This was the “compromise” many abortion supporting candidates stake out thinking that voters will admire their personal belief system and their willingess to let the woman make her “choice”. Is this a morally coherent position though? How about imposing a solution like this to another great moral question– slavery. What if, instaed of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln had said, “I am personally opposed to slavery, but there are some who do not see a moral issue here, so I am going to let each choose what he thinks is best. I will not cram my morality down anyone’s throat”. Would that have been a “courageous” stand? And to think, as bad as slavery is, that snuffing out another human life is even worse.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Well said. “If you don’t like slavery then don’t own slaves.”
Reply »
Ubercon Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Hang on- Isn’t that what the conservatives fall back on about issues like health insurance and things those don’t affect their social strata? If you want insurance, get a job, right? Pick and choose the issues that are convenient, talk about less government and freedom, yet make moral judgments about those whose choices don’t fit your views. It’s really a load of crap.
Reply »
Karen says:
Pro-choice = woman’s reproductive rights.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 8:53 am
You mean
Pro-choice = womyn’s reproductive rights
Reply »
JFK's Ghost says:
Spiro and other anti-abortion advocates: is there ever a situation where a woman having an abortion is justified?
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 10:07 am
JFK> is there ever a situation where a woman having an abortion is justified?
No.
However, I’m willing to compromise to get the numbers down. I can go along with the rape/incest/mother-life-in-danger exception.
I say this knowing full well, of course, that those situations are a tiny fraction of the >70,000 abortions annually in Texas.
Reply »
JFK's Ghost Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Spiro, you confirmed that you believe it is okay to take an unborn’s life in some situations. Now please identify all situations where the government can legislate for the lawful taking of an uborn’s life. Since Republicans believe that we need more government involved in our lives, tell us what the government should tell women is okay, and is not okay. In your world of right and wrong/black and white, please tell us what government should legislative on where the line between right/wrong is when it comes to abotion.
What should government tell us to do!?!?
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
When did I confirm that?
JFK's Ghost Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
February 18 at 10:07 am according to your post above saying that you “can go along with rape/incest/mother-life-in-danger exception” for a justifiable abortion. Now, does government define each such circumstance, or should we leave that up to doctors, patients and pastors to make the decision that is right in a particular situation? Republicans were trying to redefine rape last time I checked. What definition of rape would you say an abortion is okay? Statutory rape? Date rape drug” Or just aggravated rape? What should government tell us Spiro?
Aggie for Kay says:
Patricia, you are killing this blog. I’d rather endure Burka on vacation with no posts than read your garbage.
Reply »
Patricia Kilday Hart Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Please be more specific. I wrote what happened on the Senate floor and linked a relevant Texas MOnthly story. How that is “garbage” is beyond me.
Reply »
Aggie for Kay Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:04 am
“Patrick: what would you say if all those aborted souls were in our gallery right now?” and opining that you know whose testimonies they were thinking of better than they do as innocent as your claim of simply reporting what happened.
Reply »
JFK's Ghost says:
Yea Patricia, how dare you report the actual news! How dare you expose what the Republicans are really up to in Austin instead of funding schools, keeping criminals off the streets, making college affordable/available! You clearly need to follow the Fox News model so that we do not have to suffer the inconvenient truth of leaders in Austin trying to create a Theocracy instead of focusing on the actual issues that affect most of the population.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
No one is pro-abortion. There are people for a woman’s right to choose. The Republicans that say they are for getting government out of our lives are doing the exact opposite by passing this legislation. The sonogram is actual news despite what Aggie might says.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Yes, and no one in the Confederacy was pro-slavery. They just supported the right of people to choose whether or not they wanted to own slaves. It was all very live-and-let-live.
Reply »
anita Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
No, it wasn’t “live-and-let-live” — slaves had no life. Your overly simplistic analogy doesn’t work.
Reply »
JFK's Ghost Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Rick Perry told us the Civil War was about “states’ rights”. What was it, states rights or slavery?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Kenneth Franks is right….where are the rights and freedoms of the mother? Why do the conservatives want to push so much government interference and religious persecution on women? if we have a right to choose a gun, choose who we vote for and choose where we live, we should be ab le to choose whether or not we reproduce. Its biology, not theology.
Reply »
Karen says:
The GOP wants the govt. out of their lives but doesn’t mind injecting govt. into others lives based on their religious beliefs. They are anti-abortion but don’t support sex education except for Abstinence-only programs–which is not working out too well now is it?
Texas Forgoes Federal Funds for Comprehensive Sex Ed
by Reeve Hamilton10/4/2010
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-state-agencies/health-and-human-services-commission/texas-forgoes-federal-funds-for-sex-ed/
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Karen,
Ignoring Roe for a minute, is there any compromise you would entertain in order to outlaw abortions except in the case of rape/incest/life-of-mother?
Reply »
rw says:
This bill is about a sonogram. If Texas wants to pass a bill to discourage abortion, that is their right. I think that if Texans actually had the right to vote on abortion it would be more restricted than it is now. However, 5 people in 1974 made that decision for us.
For Democrats to complain about Republicans putting the government in people lives is really the pot calling the kettle black.
It’s ridiculous that so many of our teenagers are getting pregnant. Taxpayers should not have to pay for their stupidity. It’s 2011 and if they haven’t figured out that sex can lead to pregnancy than there is no amount of condoms, sex education, or abortions that can possibly teach them.
Reply »
Amerloc says:
No, rw, this bill is not about a sonogram, at least not in the sense that we’re all going to have to dig spare change out of the furniture to pay for the enforcement of its provisions.
But can we make an attempt to get the conversation back to whether there’s a doctor-patient relationship? Or would you rather your proctologist discuss your apertures at the local sandwich shop?
Reply »