# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/61 "2013-07-06T16:04:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. Good for you: that’s what you’d want. > > But why should what YOU want control what the state legislature decides to do? Hey, no skin of my nose. There are no abortion laws where I live so I’m as happy as a pig in shit. I’m just saying that as a man that seems to be fairly big on individual liberty as well as fiscal conservatism you seem quick to want to impose on an individual’s pocket book when a similar more fiscally conservative method may yield similar results. But you are of course correct. It is just my opinion and there is no reason to favour my opinion over yours (unless you wish to provide informed consent to the prospective mother without spending personal and state resources without at least studying to see if they could be better spent elsewhere). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/62 "2013-07-06T16:05:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Again, can state legislatures mandate any medical procedures that are unwanted by both patient and doctor, or just this one? I reject your premise. There are three people involved here; you mention the desires of only two of them. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/63 "2013-07-06T16:06:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I understand that some of them have been sneaking into law school these days. “You are old,” said the youth, “And your jaws are too weak For anything tougher than suet; Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak— Pray, how did you manage to do it?” “In my youth,” said his father, “I took to the law, And argued each case with my wife; And the muscular strength which it gave to my jaw, Has lasted the rest of my life.” from _Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland_, Lewis Carroll ---
**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 6, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/64 "2013-07-06T16:11:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I reject your premise. There are three people involved here; you mention the desires of only two of them. Legally, there are only 2. And you know that. ---
**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 6, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/65 "2013-07-06T16:12:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I reject your premise. There are three people involved here; you mention the desires of only two of them. The ultrasound is a procedure done to the mother. But ok. Can the state mandate that any medical procedure be done to a pregnant woman, regardless if it is unwanted by mother and doctor? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/66 "2013-07-06T16:13:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Legally, there are only 2. And you know that. This is not a correct statement of the law. _Casey_ says the state has an interest in the life of the fetus from the outset of the pregnancy. It is only after viability that this interest is strong enough to restrict abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/67 "2013-07-06T16:14:45Z")
Nice. Just wait until the doctors have to describe the features of the fetus to a horrified ectopically-pregnant woman, telling her about the adorable button nose of the developing baby that’s threatening her very life, just because some politicians think they understand medically-“necessary” procedures better than doctors. Or to a woman whose late-term pregnancy is done because her baby has died inside her. But hey, go with that compassion, instead of letting doctors make their own judgement calls about what their patients do and do not need to hear. ---
**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 6, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/68 "2013-07-06T16:14:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I reject your premise. There are three people involved here; you mention the desires of only two of them. Any potential third in this situation is a child of the mother. Generally, parents can make legal and medical decisions for their children. Seeing that the courts have determined that abortion is an acceptable and legal medical procedure for a mother and doctor to perform, why is it necessary that the state supersede the pregnant mother’s rights in this instance? And in what other instances can the state supersede the pregnant mother’s rights to make medical decisions regarding her body and her unborn child? ---
**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 6, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/69 "2013-07-06T16:15:16Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This is not a correct statement of the law. _Casey_ says the state has an interest in the life of the fetus from the outset of the pregnancy. It is only after viability that this interest is strong enough to restrict abortion. Does _Casey_ make the fetus a person? ---
**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 6, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/70 "2013-07-06T16:22:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I reject your premise. There are three people involved here; you mention the desires of only two of them. There are only three people involved if the third is Scott Walker. Wisconsin doesn’t have a foetal personhood statute or amendment (for whatever dubious value such a thing might have.) I also note that the lack of medical necessity of such a procedure is [well settled](http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/100_199/0199.html)\*: > [@](#): > > The use of either two-dimensional or three-dimensional ultrasonography only to view the fetus, obtain a picture of the fetus, or determine the fetal sex without a medical indication is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice. I find this _particularly_ ironic in light of the stated legislative purposes behind the enactment: > [@](#): > > It is the intent of the legislature in enacting this section to further the important and compelling state interests in all of the following… (2) Fostering the development of standards of professional conduct in the practice of abortion. One would think that legislation truly intended to “foster the development of standards of professional conduct” would not mandate that existing standards of conduct be ignored. [QUOTE=Richard Parker] This is not a correct statement of the law. Casey says the state has an interest in the life of the fetus from the outset of the pregnancy. [/QUOTE] _Casey_ does not say that the foetus is a _person_, though. Note the use of the language “profound interest in _potential_ life.” ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/71 "2013-07-06T16:23:54Z")
_Casey_ recognizes the state’s interest in the fetus’s imminent personhood from the outset of the pregnancy. So it is not wrong to say the state may consider three people: the mother, the doctor, and the future person that is the fetus. ---
**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 6, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/72 "2013-07-06T16:26:17Z")
_Casey_ also rejects any regulations that place an “undue burden” on the mother. I think this clearly fall sin that category. This is just another way for the anti-abortion side to try and weaken abortion law. I can’t blame them for trying, but no objective person can defend this on legal grounds under current case law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/73 "2013-07-06T16:26:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you answer the question about the actual legal status, under the current constitutional interpretation set forth in Roe, of the fetus? Since it does not have any more rights than some random clump of tissue, where does the state derive its authority to mandate this test? States have plenary authority. They may legislate on any subject they please, so long as their legislation does not contravene the federal government’s laws (assuming such laws are correctly in furtherance of the powers granted under the federal constitution) or the guarantees in the constitution itself. So the key question then becomes: under _Roe_ and its progeny, is this kind of mandate permissible? The closest case on point is, in my view, _Gonzales v. Carhart_, in which the Supreme Court upheld the Congressional ban on partial-birth abortion. As the [New England Journal of Medicine](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhle072595) said of that ruling: > [@](#): > > This is the first time the Court has ever held that physicians can be prohibited from using a medical procedure deemed necessary by the physician to benefit the patient’s health. > . > . > . > Until this opinion, the Court recognized the importance of not interfering with medical judgments made by physicians to protect a patient’s interest. For the first time, the Court permits congressional judgment to replace medical judgment. So we see that Congress does have the constitutional power to replace medical judgement with legislative judgement. And if Congress, then why not a state legislature, which after all has no constraints on its areas of legislative reach in the way Congress does? A more restrictive ultrasound bill was passed in Texas in 2011, mandating that abortion providers play an audible heartbeat of the unborn child for the mother seeking abortion, as well as a detailed description of the unborn child in the sonogram. That law was challenged, and the Fifth Circuit dissolved in injunction against it (Texas Medical Providers v. Lakey, 667 F. 3d 570 (2012)), on the grounds that success on the merits was unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/74 "2013-07-06T16:27:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > _Casey_ also rejects any regulations that place an “undue burden” on the mother. I think this clearly fall sin that category. > > This is just another way for the anti-abortion side to try and weaken abortion law. I can’t blame them for trying, but no objective person can defend this on legal grounds under current case law. And Texas’ more restrictive law being upheld, at least thus far? If you’re correct, then opponents of the law will have little difficulty scuttling it. But Texas ran into some problems. How do you reconcile that? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/75 "2013-07-06T16:29:55Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > Nice. Just wait until the doctors have to describe the features of the fetus to a horrified ectopically-pregnant woman, telling her about the adorable button nose of the developing baby that’s threatening her very life, just because some politicians think they understand medically-“necessary” procedures better than doctors. Or to a woman whose late-term pregnancy is done because her baby has died inside her. But hey, go with that compassion, instead of letting doctors make their own judgement calls about what their patients do and do not need to hear. To be fair, the law does give an exception for medical emergencies. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/76 "2013-07-06T16:31:58Z")
I fear I may have inadvertently misled the reader when I posted about the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposition to the legislation. While that was not in error, it is far from complete. According to our good friends over at _ThinkProgress_ > [@](#): > > …The Wisconsin Medical Society, the Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards, the Wisconsin Academy of Family Physicians, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, and the Wisconsin Public Health Association all declined to endorse the proposals… [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/06/2261051/scott-walker-quietly-signs-mandatory-ultrasound-bill-into-law/](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/06/2261051/scott-walker-quietly-signs-mandatory-ultrasound-bill-into-law/) I regret any misunderstanding. ---
**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 6, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/77 "2013-07-06T16:32:04Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > To be fair, the law does give an exception for medical emergencies. So make every abortion an emergency- problem solved! ---
**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 6, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/78 "2013-07-06T16:33:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And Texas’ more restrictive law being upheld, at least thus far? Let’s wait until the decision is actually in before using it as case law. ---
**Author:** ![legalsnugs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@legalsnugs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legalsnugs)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/79 "2013-07-06T16:37:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I’m not white, and I said “a human being,” which you somehow managed to read as _of a human nature_. I hope it wasn’t the estrogen that caused that kind of confusion. Oh, you’re not white. How reassuring… Good god, man. Learn to read. Did you think I somehow believed you personally were one of the legislators enacting these draconian measures to control women? Or that your non-whiteness changes my opinion of your ilk one iota? And if you’d read my post, you’d have seen that I was quoting _you_. Since you seem to be lost in your conservative fog to the point that you retain no knowledge of what you yourself posted, here - I’ll quote you again: > [@Bricker](#): > > It conveys the human nature of the unborn child. Jerk. ---
**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 6, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/80 "2013-07-06T16:38:29Z")
Actually, what would stop abortion providers from declaring every abortion that comes in an emergency, if this allows them to sidestep the ultrasound requirement? If one side is playing dirty, why can’t the other? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=5)