# I pit Gov. Scott Walker for mandating the unnecessary inserting of objects into women **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 5, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746 "2013-07-05T20:19:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/241 "2013-07-09T20:33:44Z")
> [@legalsnugs](#): > > Except under the law, of course. Abortion is a legal procedure and getting an abortion has been declared Constitutional by our highest court. It is not, legally, murder. You’re a lawyer with no respect for the law. Just another willfully ignorant theocrat. And getting an ultrasound prior to an abortion has been at least preliminarily found constitutional by the Fifth Circuit; the Supremes have not addressed it. How can you possibly say I have no respect for the law? > [@](#): > > Besides, your bible says when a person receives a soul, i.e., becomes a human: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2:7. Without the breath of life, i.e., pre-birth, it’s either not living, or not a soul, or both. There’s your theocracy. No. As a Catholic, I don’t regard Genesis as a literal account of the beginning of man, for one thing. Even if I did, it would be my first assumption that Adam was _sui generis_ in this regard, and that future humans, born of woman rather than created directly by God, had a different method of becoming living souls. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/242 "2013-07-09T20:53:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It depends on the purpose. If I were an asymptomatic carrier of some disease, I might regard tests and prophylactic measures as meaningless, but there would certainly be good reason for the government to undertake them anyway. > > So, yes, I’m OK with that idea. And if you found out you WERE diseased, I trust you would not appreciate a government-mandated lecture on the history and biology of the microbe to be delivered before you could get your antibiotics. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/243 "2013-07-09T20:57:21Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And if you found out you WERE diseased, I trust you would not appreciate a government-mandated lecture on the history and biology of the microbe to be delivered before you could get your antibiotics. I might or might not appreciate it – but if the legislature passed and the governor signed a bill mandating this, I’d certainly not try to claim it was somehow invalid. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/244 "2013-07-09T20:57:53Z")
**Bricker** , your strategy appears to pretend that all we are talking about is the usefulness of ultrasound as medical procedure. As if you could justify all of these obnoxious hassles if you can just shoe-horn a reasonable doubt in place. Failing that, well, its legal, so there. But the medical professionals have spoken, loud and clear. Referenced above, to an exhaustive degree. This is an effort to make getting a safe and clean abortion more difficult. If you can look me in the monitor and bat big brown innocent eyes and tell me that you believe that the motivation for these laws is the well-being of the mother, I will be, once again, astonished at the level of mendacity you are capable of embracing. But what I’m expecting to get is a rewarmed serving of voting rights, that even if the motivation for the law is utterly reprehensible, so long as you can find even the slightest justification, you can convince yourself that a good thing blossomed from evil intent. To prevent abortion fraud, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/245 "2013-07-09T21:21:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I might or might not appreciate it – but if the legislature passed and the governor signed a bill mandating this, I’d certainly not try to claim it was somehow invalid. Would you be so accommodating if the state implemented a one child policy and mandated forced abortions on violators? Many see this as a gross violation of basic human rights, whether or not it was passed by a legislature and signed by a governor. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/246 "2013-07-09T21:44:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If it’s not at the moment of conception, I cannot imagine a principled bright-line rule for any other moment. Birth, of course, is reasonably bright-line, but it’s not principled, because it’s clear to me that a baby two days before birth is still a fully-formed human being, deserving of the law’s protection. > > When else? But you know, of course, that “I cannot imagine X existing” is not a valid argument that “X does not exist.” You must have some other assumptions implicit in this argument. What are they? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/247 "2013-07-09T21:47:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe that having an ultrasound, and having a doctor explain the visible features of the unborn baby, will result in any fewer abortions? > > If it does, then doesn’t it suggest that a woman who was seeking an abortion, hears and sees the humanizing information about her pregnancy, and decides not to… doesn’t it seem that this woman did not have all the relevant information? I have never really thought about the issue the way I’m about to frame it, but here goes. I don’t think the gov’t has the right to require that a particular person or kind of person consume a particular kind of information. (There are probably exceptions to this, so that can be one direction to go in the discussion). The gov’t has the right to make certain information generally available, but not to require that particular classes make _use_ of that information. Well, that’s the view. What legal or philosophical arguments against (or outright counterexamples) are there? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/248 "2013-07-09T21:51:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Humans die all the time of natural causes. There is nothing remarkably different about miscarriages. Some large percentage (I want to say it’s over half but can’t find the cite ATM) of fertilized eggs never implant, and die a few days later. This is definitely a death from natural causes. But the significance of this fact is that very nearly zero anti-abortion people will feel even a little bit sad about it. People are dying around them every day (on their view) and sure, there’s nothing we can really do about it, but shouldn’t this at least be a cause for sadness or regret? Will anti-abortion people be all for doing what we can to go in there and save those unimplanted zygotes should the tech ever be available? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/249 "2013-07-09T22:00:06Z")
**Bricker** , do you feel the [temporary block](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-new-wisconsin-abortion-law-on-hospital-admitting-privileges/2013/07/08/ca771286-e82b-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_story.html) put on the Wisconsin law has any legal merit? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/250 "2013-07-09T22:03:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I might or might not appreciate it – but if the legislature passed and the governor signed a bill mandating this, I’d certainly not try to claim it was somehow invalid. Oh, I’m not claiming the law is invalid. I sure it crossed the right i’s and dotted all its t’s. It may well represent a perfectly-formatted, properly procedured, perfectly legal piece of immoral governmental intrusion into the lives of individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/251 "2013-07-09T22:11:43Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I have never really thought about the issue the way I’m about to frame it, but here goes. > > I don’t think the gov’t has the right to require that a particular person or kind of person consume a particular kind of information. (There are probably exceptions to this, so that can be one direction to go in the discussion). Actually, there are numerous examples. The government can mandate that certain information be taught in various classes. The government can require driver’s education prior to handing out licenses. Possibly also education on gun-handling for similar reasons. I gather one cannot get a law license or a medical license or various other licenses without being exposed to certain information, though standards vary by venue. If we’re going to use the term “rational basis” as anything other than a buzzword meaning “the legislature says so”, one can see the rational basis of requiring doctors to know what a kidney is, for example, or drivers know what a yield sign looks like, or that in order to get a high-school diploma, a student must have been shown what arithmetic is. The rational aspect of making a pregnant woman undergo an ultrasound as a prelude to terminating that pregnancy escapes me. If she _wants_ an ultrasound, fine. If her doctor honestly believes it would be medically useful, fine. Why is government involved? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/252 "2013-07-09T22:39:16Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Some large percentage (I want to say it’s over half but can’t find the cite ATM) of fertilized eggs never implant, and die a few days later. I’ve heard 1/3, but same issue whether it’s 1/2 or 1/3. It’s a lot! > [@](#): > > This is definitely a death from natural causes. But the significance of this fact is that very nearly zero anti-abortion people will feel even a little bit sad about it. > How do you know they’re not “sad” about it? People are dying around them every day (on their view) and sure, there’s nothing we can really do about it, but shouldn’t this at least be a cause for sadness or regret? How do you know they’re not “sad” about it? !00% of all the people ever born will die. Aren’t you “sad” about that? > [@](#): > > Will anti-abortion people be all for doing what we can to go in there and save those unimplanted zygotes should the tech ever be available? Probably. Why don’t you propose the details of how this would be done to someone who is pro-Life. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/253 "2013-07-09T23:16:53Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The rational aspect of making a pregnant woman undergo an ultrasound as a prelude to terminating that pregnancy escapes me. If she _wants_ an ultrasound, fine. If her doctor honestly believes it would be medically useful, fine. Why is government involved? Because the anti-abortion movement has run out of steam trying to convince others to obey them voluntarily, so they turn to coercion thru legal means. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/254 "2013-07-09T23:17:23Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I have never really thought about the issue the way I’m about to frame it, but here goes. > > I don’t think the gov’t has the right to require that a particular person or kind of person consume a particular kind of information. (There are probably exceptions to this, so that can be one direction to go in the discussion). The gov’t has the right to make certain information generally available, but not to require that particular classes make _use_ of that information. > > Well, that’s the view. What legal or philosophical arguments against (or outright counterexamples) are there? Forcing tobacco companies to run certain specific kinds of ads? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/255 "2013-07-09T23:45:49Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Because the anti-abortion movement has run out of steam trying to convince others to obey them voluntarily, so they turn to coercion thru legal means. Yes, I know it’s a coercive ploy. I was being Socratic. As for tobacco warnings, the tobacco companies analogous position is that of the doctor who must perform a service before delivering to the smoker/pregnant woman what the smoker/pregnant woman really wants. It’s an icky analogy on several levels, but there you go. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/256 "2013-07-10T00:14:45Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > Would you be so accommodating if the state implemented a one child policy and mandated forced abortions on violators? Many see this as a gross violation of basic human rights, whether or not it was passed by a legislature and signed by a governor. Sure, that would be a problem. I’d expect the courts to take some action there, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/257 "2013-07-10T00:18:14Z")
Judicial activism, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/258 "2013-07-10T00:45:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **Bricker** , do you feel the [temporary block](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-new-wisconsin-abortion-law-on-hospital-admitting-privileges/2013/07/08/ca771286-e82b-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_story.html) put on the Wisconsin law has any legal merit? It may. It seems to be focused on the surgical rating of facilities, more than the ultrasound. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/259 "2013-07-10T00:46:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Judicial activism, huh? Not in that case. Mandating abortions would go against the history and traditions of our nation, and that’s one of the areas protected by due process. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/260 "2013-07-10T00:56:22Z")
Heck, history and traditions get slapped down by the courts quite a bit. I can see them letting a one-child policy slide or, more specifically, it’s within their discretion to let it, just as we recognize it’s within the discretion of a legislature to pass laws that cause more harm than good. This is one of those laws. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=14)