# 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:** 22
**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 15, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/421 "2013-07-15T13:31:25Z")
If we look at this from a purely political standpoint, the Republicans are foolish to pursue the “vaginal ultrasound” mandate as it is widely unpopular. I’m not sure about the requirement for the abortion clinic to have surgical capabilities and such, but the 20 week ban is actually quite popular. In fact, support for abortion in the US falls off considerably after the 1st trimester, and that’s only 12 weeks +/-. Now, the vast majority of abortions do occur in the first trimester, so a 20 week ban probably wouldn’t do much to reduce the number of abortions, but it could be like the “partial birth abortion” issue in which the Democrats may find themselves on the wrong side, politically. I don’t like the chipping away at abortion access, but the 20 week ban is something the Republicans could leverage, politically. If they were smart, which they have not shown themselves to be of late, especially where abortion is concerned. ---
**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 15, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/422 "2013-07-15T13:47:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > An update: > > After some consideration of this issue, I wish to revise my position. > > I still support the ultrasound requirement, as long as the law gives the option of either kind of transducer. I no longer support a law that requires only a vaginal transducer. > > I no longer support a law that requires both a surgical facility AND hospital admitting privileges. I see no reason to believe those requirements are anything more a pretextual attempt to stop abortions by imposing onerous requirements, and not in any way a good-faith attempt to stop abortions by convincing anyone that an abortion stops a human life. I guess I’ll echo some other posters who have asked if you really think a pregnant woman, pre-ultrasound, doesn’t know what she’s doing. Even putting aside the considerable personal burden of the pregnancy itself, it’s a safe bet the woman doesn’t want the financial and time burden of a child (or another child), something that can last far longer than nine months and may force dramatic limits on her educational and economic opportunties, or she just doesn’t _want_ to. Your financial or social interest in her decision is unclear at best. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/423 "2013-07-15T15:06:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > An update: > > After some consideration of this issue, I wish to revise my position. > > I still support the ultrasound requirement, as long as the law gives the option of either kind of transducer. I no longer support a law that requires only a vaginal transducer. > > I no longer support a law that requires both a surgical facility AND hospital admitting privileges. I see no reason to believe those requirements are anything more a pretextual attempt to stop abortions by imposing onerous requirements, and not in any way a good-faith attempt to stop abortions by convincing anyone that an abortion stops a human life. I still support laws that would require you to go through all sorts of unnecessary and unpleasant steps when you have a prostate exam. I believe that the prostate is a holy thing of vast importance to humanity. You should be forced to treat it with proper respect in accordance with my beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/424 "2013-07-15T15:47:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I guess I’ll echo some other posters who have asked if you really think a pregnant woman, pre-ultrasound, doesn’t know what she’s doing. Even putting aside the considerable personal burden of the pregnancy itself, it’s a safe bet the woman doesn’t want the financial and time burden of a child (or another child), something that can last far longer than nine months and may force dramatic limits on her educational and economic opportunties, or she just doesn’t _want_ to. Your financial or social interest in her decision is unclear at best. My interest is in saving her unborn child from death. If she is convinced she wants an abortion, how can an ultrasound change her mind? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/425 "2013-07-15T15:48:14Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > I still support laws that would require you to go through all sorts of unnecessary and unpleasant steps when you have a prostate exam. I believe that the prostate is a holy thing of vast importance to humanity. You should be forced to treat it with proper respect in accordance with my beliefs. Well, then I guess you have a lot of lobbying to do. Good luck with it. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/426 "2013-07-15T16:19:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My interest is in saving her unborn child from death. > > If she is convinced she wants an abortion, how can an ultrasound change her mind? The purpose of the ultrasound is to make the process as humiliating and unpleasant as possible to dissuade women from even pursuing an abortion. I suspect you know this and support it. It is social engineering through slut shaming. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/427 "2013-07-15T16:20:36Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > The purpose of the ultrasound is to make the process as humiliating and unpleasant as possible to dissuade women from even pursuing an abortion. I suspect you know this and support it. It is social engineering through slut shaming. I don’t agree. ---
**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 15, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/428 "2013-07-15T16:25:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My interest is in saving her unborn child from death. > > If she is convinced she wants an abortion, how can an ultrasound change her mind? Exactly. So you agree it’s just a nuisance, designed to make it more difficult to get an abortion? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/429 "2013-07-15T16:33:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Exactly. So you agree it’s just a nuisance, designed to make it more difficult to get an abortion? No. I expect that in a significant fraction of cases, seeing the ultrasound will change the mind of the mother. If, after say, a year, if the numbers don’t show that at least 20% of women changed their minds, I’d be inclined to agree that it was simply a nuisance. Would you agree that if at least 20% of women change their minds, it’s NOT simply a nuisance? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/430 "2013-07-15T16:36:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s got zero to do with my post. The point is that just because a philosophical position might be shared by a religion, it doesn’t make the position a religious one. Are you aware of any secular opposition to abortion? 😕 ---
**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 15, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/431 "2013-07-15T16:39:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. I expect that in a significant fraction of cases, seeing the ultrasound will change the mind of the mother. > > If, after say, a year, if the numbers don’t show that at least 20% of women changed their minds, I’d be inclined to agree that it was simply a nuisance. > > Would you agree that if at least 20% of women change their minds, it’s NOT simply a nuisance? I’d be interested to see how that could be studied- how would researchers determine that a woman changed her mind? If at least 20% of women change their minds after seeing the forced ultrasound, then I’d be open to the possibility that seeing ultrasounds might change a woman’s mind on her abortion. But I’d still think the law is a nuisance. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/432 "2013-07-15T16:52:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’d be interested to see how that could be studied- how would researchers determine that a woman changed her mind? If at least 20% of women change their minds after seeing the forced ultrasound, then I’d be open to the possibility that seeing ultrasounds might change a woman’s mind on her abortion. But I’d still think the law is a nuisance. A quick way would be to look at states who have implemented mandatory ultrasounds and see what happens to their abortion rates before and after the law passes. Of course, this isn’t going to take into account any people that travel to another state for their abortion to avoid having to have the procedure. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/433 "2013-07-15T16:54:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Are you aware of any secular opposition to abortion? 😕 Yes: > **[More Voices | Patheos](https://www.patheos.com/more-voices)** ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/434 "2013-07-15T16:58:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. I expect that in a significant fraction of cases, seeing the ultrasound will change the mind of the mother. > > If, after say, a year, if the numbers don’t show that at least 20% of women changed their minds, I’d be inclined to agree that it was simply a nuisance. > > Would you agree that if at least 20% of women change their minds, it’s NOT simply a nuisance? I think you personally should have a few unnecessary objects shoved up your body parts so that you will no longer support extremist religious positions. This law is just state sanction coercion. You and fellow anti-abortionists cannot get the majority to agree with your views in this matter so you are perfectly happy to get the state harass women instead. ---
**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 15, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/435 "2013-07-15T17:01:06Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > A quick way would be to look at states who have implemented mandatory ultrasounds and see what happens to their abortion rates before and after the law passes. > > Of course, this isn’t going to take into account any people that travel to another state for their abortion to avoid having to have the procedure. It also wouldn’t tell us anything about the women who weren’t able to get an ultrasound, or changed their mind for some other reason, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/436 "2013-07-15T17:31:39Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > I think you personally should have a few unnecessary objects shoved up your body parts so that you will no longer support extremist religious positions. This law is just state sanction coercion. You and fellow anti-abortionists cannot get the majority to agree with your views in this matter so you are perfectly happy to get the state harass women instead. What evidence would convince you that some women would change their mind after seeing ultrasounds? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/437 "2013-07-15T17:34:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It also wouldn’t tell us anything about the women who weren’t able to get an ultrasound, or changed their mind for some other reason, etc. I’ll give you “unable to get” but “changed their mind for some other reason” should remain relatively stable both before and after the change in law. ---
**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 15, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/438 "2013-07-15T17:35:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What evidence would convince you that some women would change their mind after seeing ultrasounds? I don’t think she particularly cares about this. For me- even if every woman who saw an ultrasound changed her mind, it wouldn’t change my opinion on this law. ---
**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 15, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/439 "2013-07-15T17:39:18Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I’ll give you “unable to get” but “changed their mind for some other reason” should remain relatively stable both before and after the change in law. How would “changed their mind for some other reason” be measured or taken into account before the law stating that ultrasounds are required goes into affect? You can’t really measure women who think about an abortion but don’t go to a clinic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/440 "2013-07-15T17:45:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t think she particularly cares about this. For me- even if every woman who saw an ultrasound changed her mind, it wouldn’t change my opinion on this law. It certainly would seem to eliminate the truth of the charge that the law is intended solely as a nuisance, to harass. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=23)