# 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:** 27
**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 17, 2013, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/521 "2013-07-17T00:28:15Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > I think this is the solution to the UHC issue. Just have congress publish a list of facilities that have free medical care. Problem solved. In case Bricker holds fast to his convenient “distinction without a difference” stance, I’d just like to congratulate you for this. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/522 "2013-07-17T01:12:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So is there a dictionary that describes in precised detail the exact preparation, sequence and detail of an obstetric ultrasound? I assume the ultrasound machine has an operating manual, and the guidelines of the procedure appear in various medical textbooks, but this is a thought experiment: > > Since you admit you’re okay (indeed embracing of) mandating an unnecessary medical procedure that, in all honesty, has nothing to do with informing the woman but everything to do with delaying (why is a 24-hour waiting period medically necessary?) and possibly emotionally manipulating her, I’ve decided my goal (in the hypothetical) is to make the ultrasound requirement moot, to the best of my ability. > > To that end, what is the absolute rock-bottom bare-minimum “obstetric ultrasound”? Could I (assuming I was a “qualified person” to operate an ultrasound machine - another issue I’d like to explore, since if there’s no licensing issue, I could just buy an obsolete machine and hang out a shingle) perform the procedure… incompetently? Slide a scanner over the woman’s abdomen for a few seconds, look at a blurry monitor image and say “Yeah, there’s the fetus. Here’s your certificate showing you completed the ultrasound procedure. Next!” > > Are you going to question my ultrasound technique? On what basis? Unless the woman or her doctor complains that I’ve provided inadequate service, how would you or Wisconsin lawmakers even find out? > > As an incidental note, I wonder if you’d care to revisit your post #459, in which you say: > > …because that is _not_ what the law provides, and you score no points by saying I’m ignorant of the law while immediately displaying ignorance of it, yourself. The law provides for free ultrasounds. If you believe that there’s a difference between that statement, and the statement that the law provides that a list of facilities offering free ultrasounds will be provided, please explain it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/523 "2013-07-17T01:13:36Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > I think this is the solution to the UHC issue. Just have congress publish a list of facilities that have free medical care. Problem solved. I see. But show me the list and it’s deficiencies. Then maybe you’ll have a point. ---
**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 17, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/524 "2013-07-17T01:33:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The law provides for free ultrasounds. No, at most it requires that patients get a list of places that have free ultrasounds. This list could be empty, if there are no such facilities, and the law contains no language on how to address the increase in demand the law will create. > [@](#): > > If you believe that there’s a difference between that statement, and the statement that the law provides that a list of facilities offering free ultrasounds will be provided, please explain it. I don’t know what text _you’re_ reading, but I’ll quote from Wisconsin 2013 Senate Bill 206 / 2013 Wisconsin Act 37: > [@](#): > > Section 4. 253.10 (3) (c) 1. gm. of the statutes is created to read: > 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. > > … > > Section 7. 253.10 (3) (em) of the statutes is created to read: > 253.10 (3) (em) Ultrasound materials and form. 1. The department shall > compile a list of facilities, including the names, addresses, and phone numbers, that > provide ultrasounds at no cost. The department shall make this list available to the > public and shall provide the list to every facility that performs or induces an abortion. > > 1. The department shall provide to every facility that performs ultrasounds at > no cost a list of the requirements under sub. (3g). I don’t know how you can twist-parse this into “provides for free ultrasounds”, but I guess you managed to doublethink your way through it. It looks to me like the law provides only for saving the woman the effort of a Google search, telling her where to find these facilities if they exist (but if they don’t… meh). Interestingly: > [@](#): > > 253.10 (3g) Performance of ultrasound. (a) Except as provided under sub. (3m) and except in a medical emergency and before a person may perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, or any physician requested by the pregnant woman, shall do all of the following, or shall arrange for a person who is qualified to perform an ultrasound to do all of the following: > > 1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses after the options have been explained to her. A facility that offers ultrasounds at no cost to satisfy the requirements of this subsection shall have available transducers to perform both transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds. So if I set up a chain of “Bryan’s No-Hassle Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Facilities” but I _don’t_ offer them at no cost (i.e. I charge a token fifty cents or whatever), I don’t have to have available both transabdominal and transvaginal transducers. I think I will get some flashlight inducers instead. Just wave them at the woman and done. Fifty cents, please. Next! ---
**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 17, 2013, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/525 "2013-07-17T01:36:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I see. > > But show me the list and it’s deficiencies. Then maybe you’ll have a point. In the way he describes, congress will be “providing for” free health care in the same way you say Wisconsin will “provide for” free ultrasounds. If there’s a distinction (or a difference), it eludes me. I ask if you can enlighten me on this. ---
**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 17, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/526 "2013-07-17T02:08:35Z")
After my last post, I stepped away to take a shower and a random thought occurred: when Bricker said (twice, by my count) that the law provides for free ultrasounds, what was his exact phrasing, and did he repeat that exact phrasing? What if he’s using “provides for” in a legal sense which means a law “provides for” _X_ by mentioning _X_, by recognizing the existence of _X_, and not in the sense many people would assume that if a law “provides for free ultrasounds”, that means the government will give people free ultrasounds, make free ultrasounds available, subsidize clinics to defray their costs in giving the public free ultrasounds… So I’ve become aware of a possible legalese “gotcha”. I did not refresh my screen when I sat down to write this, so if there are indeed any intervening “gotcha” posts, I won’t see them before I post this reply. Naturally, I have no expectation that anyone will believe me, but I’ll go on record anyway. This text will be posted and not edited. If I’m wrong, so be it. Here goes. ---
**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 17, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/527 "2013-07-17T02:13:12Z")
Huh, nothing. And on review, Bricker’s phrasings were: “[The law] does provide that the ultrasound is free.” …and… “The law provides for free ultrasounds.” Not an exact match, but I still get the sense an equivocation of some kind is coming. ---
**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 17, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/528 "2013-07-17T02:19:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So if I set up a chain of “Bryan’s No-Hassle Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Facilities” but I _don’t_ offer them at no cost (i.e. I charge a token fifty cents or whatever), I don’t have to have available both transabdominal and transvaginal transducers. I think I will get some flashlight inducers instead. Just wave them at the woman and done. Fifty cents, please. Next! > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So is there a dictionary that describes in precised detail the exact preparation, sequence and detail of an obstetric ultrasound? I assume the ultrasound machine has an operating manual, and the guidelines of the procedure appear in various medical textbooks, but this is a thought experiment: > > Since you admit you’re okay (indeed embracing of) mandating an unnecessary medical procedure that, in all honesty, has nothing to do with informing the woman but everything to do with delaying (why is a 24-hour waiting period medically necessary?) and possibly emotionally manipulating her, I’ve decided my goal (in the hypothetical) is to make the ultrasound requirement moot, to the best of my ability. > > To that end, what is the absolute rock-bottom bare-minimum “obstetric ultrasound”? Could I (assuming I was a “qualified person” to operate an ultrasound machine - another issue I’d like to explore, since if there’s no licensing issue, I could just buy an obsolete machine and hang out a shingle) perform the procedure… incompetently? Slide a scanner over the woman’s abdomen for a few seconds, look at a blurry monitor image and say “Yeah, there’s the fetus. Here’s your certificate showing you completed the ultrasound procedure. Next!” > > Are you going to question my ultrasound technique? On what basis? Unless the woman or her doctor complains that I’ve provided inadequate service, how would you or Wisconsin lawmakers even find out? The provision of medical services, such as radiology services and other medical testing is already extensively regulated by state laws. There are both private (professional) and public (government law and regulation) sources of standards. Now, neither Bricker nor I—so far as I know—is a medical or health care professional of any kind, but we are both sufficiently familiar with the law, and with the health care system to be able to reasonably surmise that in this most highly regulated of service sectors, there are already many law-based and profession-based sources of definitions and standards. I understand what you are attempting to do—“make the ultrasound requirement moot”—but if you are actually trying to make a plausible proposition about providing this kind of service, you’re going to have to do a little more than just play word games. And not only would you—as a provider of health care services—be subject to legal and professional standards, but the patient would also presumably be subject to liability if she knowingly tries to comply with the letter of the law by intentionally getting a sham ultrasound done. I understand the problem here—the conservative and Republican side has decided to throw out any shared understanding of civic life and are doing and saying whatever they want in order to impose their will on the public. It’s not an easy situation to confront. But if you are proposing a genuine debate, then your proposition must have some degree of plausibility. ---
**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 17, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/529 "2013-07-17T02:39:49Z")
All right, then what _is_ the rock-bottom bare-minimum “obstetric ultrasound”? My stated intent is to just barely satisfy the letter of the law while joyfully violating its spirit. I don’t have to play word games - can I just do a curt, lousy, lazy job that I would never attempt on a serious patient (i.e one for whom the ultrasound is actually medically necessary and useful). Do we recognize the varying standards of care from clinic to clinic, facility to facility? There’s already an unspoken assumption that poor Americans can’t get the same level of care as rich Americans, so if I set up an ultrasound clinic in a poor neighborhood, how much governmental oversight can I expect? You can say it’s a “sham” ultrasound, what if it’s just a _cheap_ ultrasound? Are there strict standards in the Wisconsin law on how detailed the ultrasound has to be? Can it be five minutes? Three? One? When does “minimal” turn into “sham?” To the extant that I _can_ propose a “genuine debate” in a Pit thread. I think I’m doing okay, speculating on bare-minimal compliance to an unjust law. Sure, I might get arrested if a District Attorney is determined to do so (or I might slide indefinitely if the DA is sympathetic). That’s a risk I might have to take, but what would I be charged with? Malpractice? I’m not, after all, providing the woman with an abortion myself in this scenario. I’m not actively conspiring with her in any way (“Would you like the detailed ultrasound or the efficient one that’ll get you out of here faster with less hassle, today?”) Possibly I lose whatever “qualification” is needed to operate an ultrasound in Wisconsin. Heck, I’ll set up clinics in the bordering states - I see no indication the ultrasound has to be actually performed in Wisconsin. It’s not ideal, since the burden to travel is still on the woman (as the law intends, no doubt), but I’d do what I can. Hypothetically, of course. I’m not going into the ultrasound business in Wisconsin or anywhere else anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/530 "2013-07-17T03:32:04Z")
In Texas, the abortion trap law requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges to a hospital, while forbidding hospitals to grant them to abortion providers. So in this case, the law could allow for free ultrasounds but shirk the duty to pay for them. AFter all, the Texas law certainly doesn’t fund the upgrades of all those Planned Parenthood offices, no? This is how Christians make laws- “Thou shalt bullshit thy jurisdiction shamelessly and without honor.” And sorry if this has been already covered, but how is this law even legal? Consider the notion of medical fraud wrt unnecessary medical procedures, from [here](http://www.orangecountyda.com/home/index.asp?page=8&recordid=2497): > [@](#): > > A doctor charged in the largest medical fraud prosecution in the nation, the 19 co-defendant Unity Outpatient Surgery Center (Unity) scheme, was convicted today of performing unnecessary and dangerous surgeries on over 160 patients in order to fraudulently bill medical insurance companies. A bunch of blowhards mandating medical procedures for people they’ve never met from the legislature sounds unnecessary to me, but hey I’m just some schmoe who can’t decide anything for himself so what do I know? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/531 "2013-07-17T06:12:07Z")
Wouldn’t the “crisis centers” that specialize in trying to talk women out of it be eager, ready and willing to provide free ultrasounds? Already do, I would imagine. They’d be glad to provide a list. C’mon down, you murderous sluts! Get your free ultrasound and your free psychological counseling. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/532 "2013-07-17T10:11:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Wouldn’t the “crisis centers” that specialize in trying to talk women out of it be eager, ready and willing to provide free ultrasounds? Already do, I would imagine. They’d be glad to provide a list. C’mon down, you murderous sluts! Get your free ultrasound and your free psychological counseling. They would better accomplish their goal by not offering free ultrasounds under this law. Not being able to get an ultrasound is a much more effective barrier to abortion than spending time and energy trying to talk someone out of it but then giving them the ultrasound that they need anyway. ---
**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 17, 2013, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/533 "2013-07-17T10:55:55Z")
Well, maybe they can _offer_ free ultrasounds, but when the woman gets there, they’re experiencing some “technical delay”, won’t you please have a seat in our waiting room which is full of pictures of smiling toddlers and has a television showing _Sesame Street_, it will only be a few hours, but if you leave I’m afraid you lose your place in line and will have to try again tomorrow… Basically the exact opposite of what I’m proposing. If there aren’t specific governmental regulations on what an “obstetric ultrasound” entails, can my version be a curt three minutes while theirs is an hours-long presentation on the beauty of childbirth? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/534 "2013-07-17T11:30:07Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, maybe they can _offer_ free ultrasounds, but when the woman gets there, they’re experiencing some “technical delay”, won’t you please have a seat in our waiting room which is full of pictures of smiling toddlers and has a television showing _Sesame Street_, it will only be a few hours, but if you leave I’m afraid you lose your place in line and will have to try again tomorrow… > Basically the exact opposite of what I’m proposing. If there aren’t specific governmental regulations on what an “obstetric ultrasound” entails, can my version be a curt three minutes while theirs is an hours-long presentation on the beauty of childbirth? I guess that they could possibly do that although I’d assume that they would wish to keep the customers that they currently have coming in for their free ultrasounds. I’d imagine that they would be gun shy of any possible law suit. The right to deny service based on moral grounds seems to be catching on in the States though so I can definitely see them refusing these ultrasounds on the grounds that they are necessary to facilitate abortion which is against their belief. By doing so they deny access at their facility and quite possibly overwhelm other facilities by shunting off their share of the additional 7000 women looking for an ultrasound. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/535 "2013-07-17T12:44:28Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > A bunch of blowhards mandating medical procedures for people they’ve never met from the legislature sounds unnecessary to me, but hey I’m just some schmoe who can’t decide anything for himself so what do I know? If you’re a him, _you_ still get to decide things for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/536 "2013-07-17T14:10:29Z")
And I’m white, too. Yee-haw! But I feel terrible for the women affect by these laws. Doesn’t the ultrasound requirement constitute medical fraud in the way other unnecessary medical procedures do? I think these laws should be struck down on that basis. Not that GOP Christians who pass these laws will be deterred by such a consideration. Once elected, their rules are something like, “Thou shalt be full of shit always, and crooked and underhanded in all your dealings.” Pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/537 "2013-07-17T14:20:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > All right, then what _is_ the rock-bottom bare-minimum “obstetric ultrasound”? My stated intent is to just barely satisfy the letter of the law while joyfully violating its spirit. I don’t have to play word games - can I just do a curt, lousy, lazy job that I would never attempt on a serious patient (i.e one for whom the ultrasound is actually medically necessary and useful). Do we recognize the varying standards of care from clinic to clinic, facility to facility? There’s already an unspoken assumption that poor Americans can’t get the same level of care as rich Americans, so if I set up an ultrasound clinic in a poor neighborhood, how much governmental oversight can I expect? > > You can say it’s a “sham” ultrasound, what if it’s just a _cheap_ ultrasound? Are there strict standards in the Wisconsin law on how detailed the ultrasound has to be? Can it be five minutes? Three? One? When does “minimal” turn into “sham?” > > To the extant that I _can_ propose a “genuine debate” in a Pit thread. I think I’m doing okay, speculating on bare-minimal compliance to an unjust law. Sure, I might get arrested if a District Attorney is determined to do so (or I might slide indefinitely if the DA is sympathetic). That’s a risk I might have to take, but what would I be charged with? Malpractice? I’m not, after all, providing the woman with an abortion myself in this scenario. I’m not actively conspiring with her in any way (“Would you like the detailed ultrasound or the efficient one that’ll get you out of here faster with less hassle, today?”) Possibly I lose whatever “qualification” is needed to operate an ultrasound in Wisconsin. Heck, I’ll set up clinics in the bordering states - I see no indication the ultrasound has to be actually performed in Wisconsin. It’s not ideal, since the burden to travel is still on the woman (as the law intends, no doubt), but I’d do what I can. > Hypothetically, of course. I’m not going into the ultrasound business in Wisconsin or anywhere else anytime soon. I imagine you might be caught by a James O’Keefe-style activist with hidden video, and then your license would be in danger. Other than that, seems like a pretty safe approach. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/538 "2013-07-17T14:24:15Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > In Texas, the abortion trap law requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges to a hospital, while forbidding hospitals to grant them to abortion providers. So in this case, the law could allow for free ultrasounds but shirk the duty to pay for them. AFter all, the Texas law certainly doesn’t fund the upgrades of all those Planned Parenthood offices, no? This is how Christians make laws- “Thou shalt bullshit thy jurisdiction shamelessly and without honor.” > > And sorry if this has been already covered, but how is this law even legal? Consider the notion of medical fraud wrt unnecessary medical procedures, from [here](http://www.orangecountyda.com/home/index.asp?page=8&recordid=2497): > > A bunch of blowhards mandating medical procedures for people they’ve never met from the legislature sounds unnecessary to me, but hey I’m just some schmoe who can’t decide anything for himself so what do I know? Think hard about the question you just asked. If the doctor in your story – the one that’s accused of medical fraud with respect to unnecessary medical procedures – could point to a law that mandated those very procedures, do you think he’d have been arrested? Don’t you think the existence of a law that not merely suggests, but outright demands such procedures, would be a perfect defense for that doctor? So what are you asking? Be specific. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/539 "2013-07-17T14:25:49Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I guess that they could possibly do that although I’d assume that they would wish to keep the customers that they currently have coming in for their free ultrasounds. I’d imagine that they would be gun shy of any possible law suit. > > The right to deny service based on moral grounds seems to be catching on in the States though so I can definitely see them refusing these ultrasounds on the grounds that they are necessary to facilitate abortion which is against their belief. By doing so they deny access at their facility and quite possibly overwhelm other facilities by shunting off their share of the additional 7000 women looking for an ultrasound. Speculative. If that happens, you’ll have a point. You’re saying that you’re worried it MIGHT happen, so therefore we should shelve the law, just in case. Nah. I decline the invitation to transform your speculation into public policy. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/540 "2013-07-17T14:58:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Speculative. If that happens, you’ll have a point. You’re saying that you’re worried it MIGHT happen, so therefore we should shelve the law, just in case. > > Nah. I decline the invitation to transform your speculation into public policy. Nope. That is not why I think the law is bad. That is random speculation based on a side conversation. Care to point out where the law provides for free ultrasounds? I would assume if the law provides for it there is a remedy specified if someone is denied this, right? Otherwise, it is not provided for in the law, the law is merely assuming that the possibility exists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=28)