In Defense Of Terry England

Re: So…You’re Calling Me A Cow?

Terry England’s comment was taken totally out of context which is no surprise since the out of context video was created by the left wing group Better Georgia. It’s not the first time they’ve produced an out of context video to further their cause and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

The debate we had on the House floor over the fetal pain bill was very emotional. For Bryan Long to take one sentence from that debate out of context so he can score a political point tells us all we need to know about him and his organization. I put his video in the same category as the bill introduced by a freshman Democrat (who has since been defeated in the primary) to outlaw vasectomies. Cheap political theater for the cable news crowd.

Taking statements out of context is a time honored political tactic. It’s a shame though when people threaten and harass someone because of an out of context statement. That is what is happening right now to Rep. England and his family. It will only get worse thanks to this new video.

Let me set the record straight: Terry England is a fine man with a big heart and I’m proud to serve with him.

Be pro-choice if you want. Despise those of us who are pro-life if you want. But don’t harass a man and his family over an out of context video.

Update: If you want to see England’s statement in context click here and follow the instructions.


  1. Three Jack says:

    Buzz, can you provide the rest of the statement in either video or text so that we can read it in context? Or a link, I haven’t been able to find anything but the video posted here.

          • sunkawakan says:

            What makes you think that society at large has more respect for animals than babies? I think that’s an inaccurate statement. And a blastocyst is not a “baby” any more than an acorn is an oak tree.

              • sunkawakan says:

                And I always thought that sentience was THE defining characteristic of humanity; that little something that set us apart from the “lesser animals.” I guess I was mistaken.

                And to challenge the validity of Rep. England’s heartwarming story that he used in an abortion debate:

                1. Rep. England was discussing the biological process of miscarriage in animals, not abortion. I thought there was a difference.

                2. Rep. England’s clients that actually breed animals, do so for commercial purposes, or are pet fanciers. It’s commonly known that these groups breed for selected traits. Not quite the same as humanity.

                3. If Rep. England were completely honest about his clients that are commercial breeders, he would likely tell you that in the event of accidental breedings that do not support those desired traits, or in event of inbreeding, that pregnancies are terminated in many species.

                4. In a majority of cases, profit incentive and breed improvement is the motivator behind livestock and pet breedings.

                Is that what this whole abortion debate is about?

          • Three Jack says:

            Thanks Buzz. I watched the full speech and agree he did not compare women to cows, but it was a bit odd. Especially the part about trading chickens for baby killing prevention legislation.

  2. James says:

    I am pro-choice, but I have no problems with the bill Mr. England was championing. I also don’t take any offense to his farm animal imagery. I don’t think he was trying to demean women. I actually found his words to be a little endearing. I am sorry to hear that he and his family are being harassed.

    But, in a social debate as important as women’s reproductive rights, words matter. I don’t think you can disagree that the Todd Akins of the world have raised a lot of hackles by attempting to justify their curtailment of constitutional reproductive liberties through ill-founded scientific or emotional arguments. Despite Mr. England’s best intentions, it is not necessarily unfair to lump his words into the “anti-abortion crazies” meme. He said what he said. And for better or worse, his words make many (including myself) wonder–why should this old man have a say over what women can and cannot do with their bodies?

    • bgsmallz says:


      I completely agree that choice of words matter. That’s why I’m completely opposed to using the phrase ‘reproductive rights’ to describe abortion rights. See, there is nothing reproductive about abortion. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It isn’t even reproduction prevention….by the time an abortion occurs, the right to reproduce has been fully executed and continues unabated in the womb, cell by cell.

      Abortion is a right to terminate a pregnancy…it is a discussion about whether a fetus is the woman’s body or if it is the body of another….but as long as we are hitting on semantics, if you are pregnant, you have exercised your reproductive rights. Abortion is having a do-over on that decision and stopping the natural reproduction process from going unabated in the womb.

      Why is this important? Because birth control, sexual liberties, and abortion are not synonymous with the human rights issues that originally led to the statement about reproductive rights as human rights…namely mass murder, rape and/or state control over the rights of parents to decide on the number and spacing of their children. That still happens on this world and it is much more of a dire human rights/womens issue than whether Kevin Bacon and The Closer are allowed to have an abortion if they choose to have sex and do not use contraceptives. It should be given its due and not usurped in the name of the sexual freedoms.

      • James says:

        Good point. I actually agree with you on the semantics of “reproductive rights” and my word usage above was admittedly poor. But not everyone agrees–including my wife, mom, and a lot of other women in my life. They see it as a reproductive issue, as in “it’s my choice whether to carry a baby to term.”

        I’m also kind of interested in your usage of the terms “sexual freedoms” and “sexual liberties” when describing abortion. Surely you don’t subscribe to the theory–often espoused by pro-lifers–that abortion is the simple refuge of people too lazy to put on a condom.

  3. BryanLong says:

    I want to make sure that everyone sees the full video, in its full context. I have posted the entire video here:

    Rep. England speaks for just over three minutes. Not a word was taken out of context in Better Georgia’s original video.

      • John Konop says:


        If I follow the logic of Rep England in his speech, how much extra money is he proposing tax pauers should spend for kids who parents do not have enough money for healthcare, food and shelter? You know 75 percent of unweeded teenage mothers end up using welfare? Are we not running out of money now? Hey, I do think he words were taking out of context by Hollywood…..but I do think the above questions are not out of context.

      • Bob Loblaw says:

        What are you going to get in the budget for this “defense” you’re mounting?

        Talking about delivering a dead farm animal during a debate of whether or not to allow a woman to end a pregnancy when her and her doctor know that the baby won’t live after birth is comparing the birthing process of farm animals to that of humans, Representative.

        You also skipped the impassioned part of England’s speaking to the “salt of the earth” cockfighter who promised he would give up his fighting chickens if England would “tell them to stop killing babies?”

        Rule #1 when your in a hole? Stop digging. Put down the shovel, unless your headed to the barn. It’ll be of good use there.

  4. Blah blah blah. Current law is settled. You guys are the ones that continuously go trying to make new abortion law and then cry about how your words were taken out of context. Just leave it alone and you won’t have to worry about it.

  5. joe says:

    They are actors. They get paid to repeat somebody elses words. It is not a surprise that they are stupid.

  6. John Walraven says:

    This story is a red herring that distracts from the main issue. The new law is requiring OB/GYNs, Neonatologists, Pediatricians and other Georgia doctors to deviate from current standards of medical care. Georgia’s doctors are working in a collaborative way to establish best practices to comply with the law. Having liberal actors bash Georgia politicans for a “war on women” to drive up voter turnout is divisive and in all candor, counterproductive to focusing on the facts involving pregnancy care when these debates take place.

    • xdog says:

      I don’t understand why you’re bashing ‘liberal actors’ while giving a free pass to lawmakers who have forced medical professionals ‘to deviate from current standards of medical care’. Who is best showing concern for mothers and children?

      • John Walraven says:

        First of all, I don’t have the authority to give a “free pass” to anyone elected to represent their district in the General Assembly. The doctors who are working to provide the best care possible to pregnant women are showing great concern for their patients and their unborn children given the parameters set in the law.

        I’m not “bashing” anyone. But when actors in California decide to wade into Georgia politics in October, I’ve been around long enough to understand what the objective is. It has nothing to do with enhancing the debate on medical appropriateness of pregnancy care and everything to do with increasing voter turnout among a specific demographic.

        I can assure you next time I’m busting my tail to express the concerns of Georgia’s OB’s and their patients on pregnancy care issues that these actors will not only be absent, but won’t even be aware that the debate is going on.

  7. AMB says:

    Here’s my proposed abortion/reproductive rights law: If it isn’t your vagina, your pregnancy, your life, get the He!! out of my business. And my doctor and I will make the decisions regarding my healthcare. End of law.
    So simple. So impossible for you Meddling Marys to understand. You have no standing. I am so waiting to hear that ruling from a judge. You have no say and no interest in deciding someone else’s pregnancy.

    • joe says:

      So if a drug crazed psycho wants to kill you for your money, that is between you and him/her, and nobody else has any standing? That sure would simplify a lot of laws.

  8. AMB says:

    It’s healthcare provided by a physician. Should be covered under my health insurance. You don”t get a say.

Comments are closed.