1. If you call it "Blogger Day on the Hill" but only invite conservative bloggers, you look like an asshole. There’s no two ways about it. If you hurry, you can still change the name of it to "Conservative Blogger Day on the Hill" but the bad taste will linger.
2. Terry Frank, analogies work like algebra. a+b=c+d If a is "liberal bloggers" and b is "dog Campfield (R)" and d is "dog Hackworth (D)," then what is c?
I’ll give you a hint, it’s not "liberal bloggers." See, because b doesn’t equal d, there’s no way a and c can be the same and still have both sides of the equation actually, you know, equal.
I know you’re trying to shift the terms of the debate, to say that liberal bloggers are just upset about Campfield’s legislation because it’s "stupid" and a "waste of time" and therefore, if we aren’t upset about all stupid, waste of time legislation, we’re hypocrites.
But we both know, because people said repeatedly, that our problems with Campfield’s legislation have to do with the violation of women’s autonomy, the threat to patient/doctor privilege, his handling of opposition, and the fact that it was stupid and a waste of time.
I realize that you’re trying to create a smoke-screen big enough to cover the egregiousness of Campfield’s position, but please.
3. Wes Comer, you say, "Because it’s now on this side of 2-3" of skin and womb we suddenly deem it worthy of receiving a birth certificate." You do realize that’s because that’s what being born means, don’t you? You are on one side of a uterus, you are not yet born. You are on the other side of a uterus, you are born.
Then you go on:
Let the self-celebrating, snarky-comment-making abortion defenders get as sanctimonious as they want about it. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin — I can already hear the dissenting, idiotic utterances before they’ve escaped the mouths of the mentally numb among us. But let me say this before the venomous grievances are vomited my way — this debate has little to do with Mr. Campfield. The fact is, and I would dare anyone to prove otherwise, that the voices being raised against Campfield have little or nothing to do with his specific legislation and everything to do with the spirit and message of the bill.
Damn straight. It does have everything to do with the sprit and message of the bill, which is "Stacey Campfield doesn’t think women have the same rights he does." Stacey Campfield doesn’t have any state legislators trying to violate his doctor/patient privilege. Stacey Campfield doesn’t have any state legislators trying to compel him to do something that is all the time painful, often dangerous, and sometimes deadly against his will. Stacey Campfield doesn’t have any state legislators making his medical records public so that any nut with a grudge can collect his name and post it on the internet or track him down or turn him over to the Army of God. Stacey Campfield doesn’t have any state legislators arguing that another person has a right to his body and that the state ought to be able to compel him to give his sovereignty to that other person against his will.
I think the spirit and the message come through loud and clear.
Listen, there’s not a person in this debate that doesn’t think that babies ought to be celebrated and the women who choose to have them commended.
But let’s be honest about what this is about: you’re angry that you can’t figure out a way to compel women to have babies. You think that, if you can argue that an unborn life is a legal person from the moment of conception–and a cute and helpless legal person to boot–you can obscure the fact that what you’re talking about is compromising the rights of women and making an end run around the fourteenth amendment which prevents you from depriving me of my liberty without the due process of law.
Tiny Cat Pants 
I’m waiting for Tim of MT Annoyances to take on the "where’s the outrage" cliche. Which I’ve totally used before. :(
Yup. It’s always the same with these yokels,fighting tooth and nail until you’ve been expelled from the womb, then, you are on your own, baby. When I hear them condeming the use of cluster bombs, which maim and kill innocent children all the time, (depleted uranium makes sure that the soil is useless for about a million years, so we can slowly kill the ones the bombs missed) and when I hear them acknowledging that a person cannot forfiet their right to life, as in convicted murderers, and, finally, when I see some compassion for those starving across our Southern border, then I will listen intently to their positions, but not until them.
1. From that post, looks to me like Terry’s admitting that Campfield’s bill is indeed stupid and a waste of time. Otherwise, why make the analogy? Took her long enough.2. Wes Comer, the Charles Schulz of the Tennessee conservative blogosphere, can tell himself all day long that this has nothing to do with Stacey Campfield himself. Well, speaking for myself (and a few other folks) a lot of it does have to do with him personally, because he just does stuff like this to get publicity for himself. Read that post of his about going on CNN Headline News. Didn’t sound like that was "all about the children" to me, unless you count Stacey himself, who is a man-child of sorts.
Frank’s tactic is the same as Campfield’s was when he posted his list of questions – distraction and intellectual dishonesty, without any meaningful relationship to the topic at hand.
Do I have to invite either of them to my Spring Fling Blogger BBQ & Bluegrass Festival?
Well surely you can’t fault Frank for not getting the algebra, I mean as a conservative she’s duty bound to believe that women can’t do math…
No Mack, you don’t have to invite them, but you have to invite me :)
Jon, the worst part is that I was just hoping that was true. I really didn’t want Exador or W. to come along and point out that my math was wrong when I was trying to snark on her. That would have been embarrassing.Newscoma, I think you and I should work up a little bluegrass cover of Judas Priest’s "Living After Midnight" to perform at the BBQ and Bluegrass Fest.How kick-ass would that be?
Now that would be absolutely awesome.And we can bring our black and white dogs, yours of the big, mine of the small.Cool Beans.
Aunt B, Serious question: do death certificates have the name of the deceased’s parents on them? I think that is relevant because otherwise, this bill wouldn’t infringe on any professional relationships.And, though I don’t support this legislation (although I do support stricter reporting requirements for abortion clinics), I have to say that your assertion about why Wes or Campfield are opposed to legalized abortion on demand certainly does not apply to me . . . I also don’t think it applies to them, but maybe you know something about them that I don’t.
Yes, death certificates contain all manner of personal information, though the exact contents vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Most contain the name and address of the deceased (and sometimes race/profession), the marital status of the deceased and name of spouse (if any), names and addresses of the parents of the deceased (and sometimes race/national origin of the parents as well as the parents’ professions), the cause of death, attachments for autopsy results, even sometimes the previous medical history. They also — obviously — give a date of birth, something that would be hard to do in the cases Campfield seeks to track.
Ned, right now, as Campfield says, the state issues death certificates for fetuses older than 22 weeks. According to the state statute 68-3-504, the names of both parents are recorded on the death certificate. Death certificates are a matter of public record.I don’t see how I misread their opposition. They feel that abortion is very, very wrong, because they believe that, no matter what the stage of gestation, that’s not just a human life, but a legal person with a right to life that trumps the legal rights of women to liberty.They therefore feel that they should be able to legally compel any sexually active woman to carry any resulting babies to term, even though there’s no other instance, except military service, of the State being able to compel a citizen to do something danger, painful, and often deadly, not even for the sake of another citizen.There’s not a good Samaritan law on the books that requires someone to sacrifice himself for another.That’s a noble thing to do, but using the law to compel women to act nobly is wrong.
Thanks for that info, Bridgett–I probably should have just looked it up myself. Now I’ll go back to acting as if this legislation had never been proposed.