Article April 11, 1903 Issue

Legislation in Texas

ROBERT L. ZILLER.

The legislature of Texas has again expressed itself as opposed to oppressive medical legislation. A bill prepared by the State Medical Association was introduced in the Senate in the early part of February by Senators Hicks and Davidson of DeWitt, which appeared to have for its object only slight and unimportant amendments to the existing medical law. The bill was quickly passed through the committee to which it was referred without any one on the outside having a hearing. Those on the committee had no objection to the bill, as they did not discover that through its innocent-sounding amendments there was removed one of the most important clauses in the existing medical law, the clause which exempts from the operation of the law those who do not use drugs in the healing of disease. The removal of this clause from the existing medical law was really the purpose of the bill. So adroitly had the matter been managed that before this was pointed out there was practically no opposition to the bill. In the attempt to remove this exemption clause the main blow was aimed at the practice of Christian Science, though all practitioners who used no drugs were included. This became evident when the bill came up for discussion, when Christian Science seemed to be almost the only issue.

It was learned that the State Medical Association had been contemplating this move for the past two years, and when the bill was brought up in the Senate on the morning of February 25, such a conflict was precipitated as has doubtless never before been witnessed in legislative halls on the subject of Christian Science. Concerning it, the Galveston News says, "With the exception of that upon the drawing for terms, the debate has been the warmest that has taken place in this Senate."

When the bill came up a motion was made to postpone until another day. Senator Hanger arose to oppose postponement unless it should be indefinite postponement. He was opposed to the bill, and made a forcible speech in defence of his position. He disclaimed any knowledge of or belief in Christian Science, but held that this is not a subject for legislation. He concluded by saying, "Because I do not believe in Christian Science I have no right to say to my neighbor, you have no right to your belief, when he says he has been healed. Every man has a right to select his own method of cure. I know little about it, but I know that in this measure is involved the fundamental principle upon which the government is founded, and to pass it would be to take away man's constitutional rights."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Legislation in Texas

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access