# 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:** 24
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/461 "2013-07-15T21:38:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes: > > [More Voices | Patheos](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/25/yes-there-are-atheists-who-are-anti-abortion/) I like how that link features a quote from someone named Julie Thielen who says: “As a society we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable”, which makes me ask: judged… by _who?_ ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/462 "2013-07-15T21:42:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So now I’m guessing you haven’t even read this law you’ve been arguing against. > > It does provide that the ultrasound is free. Freely available or just free? Can a woman seeking an abortion be guaranteed an ultrasound appointment the same day? And I’ll casually argue against this or any other law that seeks to add medically unnecessary procedures for the purposes of propaganda. So how about my thought experiment? Does the law define what an “ultrasound procedure” is, exactly, or can doctors find more “efficient” methods to carry it out, i.e. “please put your hand on this photocopier… I mean, ‘ultrasound machine’.” ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/463 "2013-07-15T21:54:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It does provide that the ultrasound is free. Does it? I thought that the wording indicated that a list of clinics offering free ultrasounds would be provided and not that the ultrasound would be free at every provider. ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/464 "2013-07-15T21:57:54Z")
Can somebody just post the text of the bill? I feel comfortable challenging Bricker all day, any day, on the illogic of his various rationalizations for bad laws, but if he’s going to start playing the “you haven’t even read it” card… ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/465 "2013-07-15T22:01:08Z")
Nm ---
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/466 "2013-07-15T22:08:08Z")
> **[Wisconsin Legislature: SB206: Bill Text](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/sb206)** > > Relating to: requirements to perform abortions, requiring an ultrasound before informed consent for an abortion, and providing a penalty. I think this is it. ---
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/467 "2013-07-15T22:15:51Z")
Thanks, I’m reviewing it [here](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/acts/37), though it looks a little long to copy and paste. The provisions regarding ultrasounds include: > [@](#): > > 253.10 (3) (c) 1. gm. That the pregnant woman is required to obtain an ultrasound that meets the requirements under sub. (3g), if she has not already had an ultrasound that meets those requirements. The physician, or other qualified physician, shall provide to the pregnant woman a list of providers that perform an ultrasound at no cost to the woman, as described in par. (em) 1. And sub (3g) says, in part: > [@](#): > > 1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses after the options have been explained to her. Is “obstetric ultrasound” legally defined somewhere in Wisconsin law, because if not, I see an excellent opportunity for an end-run. And there are repeated references to “a facility that offers ultrasounds at no cost” which is not the same as “the ultrasound is free” because there’s no indication in the bill for provisions for increasing the number of clinics who can and will offer ultrasounds at no cost, which means availability might be sharply limited, hence _not_ free for a woman who wants the procedure done in a timely manner. Bricker, did _you_ read the law? ---
**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, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/468 "2013-07-15T22:23:34Z")
While I’m speculating, might there be a market for “No Hassle Ultrasound Clinics” in Wisconsin? Woman walks in, no appointment necessary, technician waves a wand at her, hands her a blurry picture of a fetus (can you prove it’s not hers? Where’s YOUR medical degree?), stamps her hand or whatever, and done. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/469 "2013-07-15T22:24:08Z")
> [@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. [Abortion Debate: Little Evidence Sonograms Change Minds, Doctors Say](http://www.livescience.com/12886-abortion-sonogram-research.html) > [@](#): > > Wiebe has done some of the few studies worldwide that attempt to look at women’s reactions to viewing an ultrasound pre-abortion. The research can’t speak directly to laws like the proposed Texas bill, Wiebe told LiveScience, because in that study\*\* “nobody was ever forced to do something they didn’t want to do.”\*\* But it is the closest thing to research anyone has ever done on state sonogram policies. > > The study, published in 2009 in the European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, found that, when given the option, 72 percent of women chose to view the sonogram image. Of those, 86 percent said it was a positive experience. **None changed their mind about the abortion**. The issue that make these newer sonogram laws particularly harassing is _the mandatory viewing_ and justifying it by saying women can just close their eyes and plug their ears? (according to the Texas 5th Circuit Court of Appeals) That is beyond degrading. All of this is further exacerbated by the 24 hour waiting period between sonogram and procedure (requiring two office visits _with a physician_) with the additional cost of the sonogram to the procedure. Offering women the option to view the image before the procedure is perfectly ethical and warranted. Some women actually appreciated it because the embryo/fetus at that stage looks relatively nothing like a human so they felt better about their decision. Some women were distressed by it, but still went ahead the procedure. Other women had no reaction at all. However, requiring a sonogram separate from the abortion procedure (lets be honest, [it is typically already part of the abortion procedure](http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/01/challenges-in-the-trans-vaginal-ultrasound-debate/)), mandating that the patient view it (or close their eyes and plug their ears :mad:), in addition to compelling the physician to speak about the image when none of said speech pertains to the individual woman’s health (this is totally beyond “informing” her about abortion alternatives or expressing the ‘state’s interest in the potential life of the fetus’), and then come back 24 hour later for the procedure? Totally harassing, degrading and unnecessary. In fact, I venture to guess why these newer sonogram laws are going beyond the previous enacted laws that\* mandate a sonogram, but optional viewing\* - to _mandated sonograms, mandated viewing, in addition to compelling physician speech 24 hours before the procedure_, is precisely because viewing the image on it’s own did not change any woman’s mind about undergoing the abortion. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/470 "2013-07-15T22:33:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > While I’m speculating, might there be a market for “No Hassle Ultrasound Clinics” in Wisconsin? Woman walks in, no appointment necessary, technician waves a wand at her, hands her a blurry picture of a fetus (can you prove it’s not hers? Where’s YOUR medical degree?), stamps her hand or whatever, and done. I suspect these ‘No Hassle Ultrasound Clinics’, are really just CPCs and the law is designed to coerce women to go there for “free” sonograms or pay out of pocket in order to receive one from a legitimate medical clinic. ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/471 "2013-07-15T22:34:50Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > The issue that make these newer sonogram laws particularly harassing is _the mandatory viewing_ Not that I don’t agree the law is bullshit, but Wisconsin at least says: > [@](#): > > (b) No person may require a pregnant woman to view the ultrasound images that are required to be displayed for and reviewed with her or to visualize any fetal heartbeat. No person, including the pregnant woman, may be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman declines to view the displayed ultrasound images or to visualize any fetal heartbeat. So it’s forcing the doctor to jump though this particular hoop, but the woman doesn’t have to follow. Of course, it might depend on how picky someone’s willing to be on parsing “woman declines to view” versus “and reviewed with her.” I’m sure some pregnant pro-lifer will be happy to rat out any doctor she feels isn’t “reviewing” hard enough. ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/472 "2013-07-15T22:37:49Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > I suspect these ‘No Hassle Ultrasound Clinics’, are really just CPCs and the law is designed to coerce women to go there for “free” sonograms or pay out of pocket in order to receive one from a legitimate medical clinic. You misunderstand. **Bryan Ekers** is saying that a business opportunity exists to open “abortion ultrasound clinics” that conform to the letter of the law (thus the importance of there being no legal definition of obstetric ultrasound) but in fact just rubberstamp the ultrasound. A quick 5 min in and out with the legal paperwork in hand., as it were. ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/473 "2013-07-15T22:39:22Z")
Yes, that’s what I meant, if “obstetric ultrasound” is not legally defined, I see an business opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/474 "2013-07-15T22:50:39Z")
Courts won’t fall for nonsense like that. They will look to standard medical practice and other evidence for definitions of “obstetric ultrasound.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/475 "2013-07-15T22:54:11Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I like how that link features a quote from someone named Julie Thielen who says: “As a society we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable”, which makes me ask: judged… by _who?_ Anyone decent. ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/476 "2013-07-15T22:56:41Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Courts won’t fall for nonsense like that. They will look to standard medical practice and other evidence for definitions of “obstetric ultrasound.” So it’ll be up to doctors to write the guidelines that guide the courts, then? What if enough Wisconsin doctors say “… yeah, what the Fly-By-Night Obstetric Ultrasound Company (‘No Fetus Can Beat Us!’) does is borderline acceptable medical practice, for the purposes of pre-abortion ultrasounds…” ---
**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, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/477 "2013-07-15T22:59:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Anyone decent. Like… Canadians? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/478 "2013-07-15T23:07:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Somebody finally fell for his praise trolling. At least it takes longer now than it used to. I gotta say, that’s a pretty douche-y attitude for you to take. Bricker held a position, then he listened to arguments and change his position. Then when someone attacked him for holding a position he no longer held, he pointed that out. And you’re attacking him for it? If there’s one thing the SDMB needs it’s more people who are willing to even consider changing their mind based on reasoned argument, and complaining when they do so sure isn’t going to help that cause… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/479 "2013-07-15T23:10:57Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I gotta say, that’s a pretty douche-y attitude for you to take. Bricker held a position, then he listened to arguments and change his position. Then when someone attacked him for holding a position he no longer held, he pointed that out. And you’re attacking him for it? No, for it being a habit of his. He douches out, gets the whole board pissed at him, then backs down and asks for praise for his “willingness to change”. He’s done it many times before, and it’s surprising you haven’t noticed. Note that this time he hasn’t even bothered to come up with a cover story to explain this change of alleged principle. ---
**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, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/480 "2013-07-15T23:25:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And there are repeated references to “a facility that offers ultrasounds at no cost” which is not the same as “the ultrasound is free” because there’s no indication in the bill for provisions for increasing the number of clinics who can and will offer ultrasounds at no cost, which means availability might be sharply limited, hence _not_ free for a woman who wants the procedure done in a timely manner. > > Bricker, did _you_ read the law? Yeah, I pointed that out to him on page 1 of the thread. I’m sure he just missed that post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=25)