# 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:** 60
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1181 "2013-08-10T00:32:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Is that right, Mr. Pot? I usually only lie to spare feelings or in furtherance of a good story. Bricker misleads people all the time. Look at any voter ID threads. Well, don’t, because they are like 9000 pages long, and no one deserves that. > [@](#): > > Feel free to point me to these explanations. Additionally, perhaps you can explain it simply and directly, you know, for all those not quite as brilliant as you. I’m hardly brilliant. I just seem that way because you’re confused. > [@](#): > > Of course it’s true. I’m pleased top see that you actually understand this. The point you seem incapable of grasping is that as long as a valid and defensible secular motivation exists, the existence of a religious one becomes moot. Hold up. Think hard about this: If more than one motivation can exist for the same action, then is it possible for the action to sometimes be good, and sometimes be bad? Shooting a 15 year old holding a knife is a good action if you think he’s going to kill you. And a bad action if you think he’s about to return it to the kitchen. So, your assertion that as long as a good motivation exists it is impossible for there to be a bad motivation, is spectacularly silly. Your thinking is fuzzy and muddled, and you need to step back, and examine it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1182 "2013-08-10T01:34:29Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > What else is missed by those links is the problem of assuming the existence of human exceptionalism that comes from nowhere. I’d like to see them answer that with a non-religious answer I offered those links as proof of an argument against abortion that is not tied to religion. They needn’t be strong enough to convince you or me of their position, only that it is a sound and reasonable position. The last link, the YouTube link shows famed atheist Christopher Hitchens presenting on of the philosophical underpinnings. Again, an argument needn’t convince me or you to adopt that position in order to be valid. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > For example, if someone said its wrong to shoot somebody in the face because it violates that person’s autonomy and harms him undeservedly, that’s a valid secular argument. If someone says that its wrong because their god says its wrong, while the guy’s situation doesn’t change, I wouldn’t exactly support that justification as law because he’d be making a religious argument. I’d tell them they would have to justify it somehow without using their god to do so because I would consider it a valid argument. Agreed. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think we’re talking a little bit around each other because I do agree that the existence of a religious argument doesn’t void that argument, my contention is that those are often mixed so that you can’t tell them apart OR that the secular argument seems to be based on religion. Have all the religious justifications you want, only you’ll have to remove them if you want anyone not of that denomination to follow it Again, I agree with this. But there have been posters in this thread unable to accept and/or live by the distinction you make. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > The point I was trying to make, and maybe this doesn’t necessarily apply to Bricker, was that if I were speaking as an atheist, I deny the validity of some argument solely because my religion of atheism (and we can save the “is atheism a religion?” debate for another thread), would religious people accept that or would they instead deny it because “oh he’s just one of those atheists” IF we take into account there are non-atheist arguments supporting my contention. If the former, wouldn’t religious people be doing the same thing they accuse atheists of (only without the grounded factual basis that secularism has)? I’m still a bit confused. But I feel the need to say that I don’t think any religionist would dismiss a position out of hand simply because it had no foundation or support in religion. But that may not be what you mean at all. One thing that I think might be confusing is that some posters have tried to use **Bricker** , the individual, as proxy for society at large. It appears, that some think that if they can show that his motivation is not purely secular that a purely secular position against abortion does not exist. His link to non-Christian and Atheist sites that are opposed to abortion should have put a stop to that point of attack, but no such luck. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1183 "2013-08-10T01:51:00Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m hardly brilliant. I just seem that way because you’re confused. Very possibly, yes. A poster’s poor logic can indeed have that effect on me. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Hold up. Think hard about this: > > If more than one motivation can exist for the same action, then is it possible for the action to sometimes be good, and sometimes be bad? > > Shooting a 15 year old holding a knife is a good action if you think he’s going to kill you. And a bad action if you think he’s about to return it to the kitchen. > > So, your assertion that as long as a good motivation exists it is impossible for there to be a bad motivation, is spectacularly silly. Your thinking is fuzzy and muddled, and you need to step back, and examine it. Yeesh. You’re looking at _one_ _motivation_, i.e., the potential shooter’s intent to stay alive. If you were referring to the motivations of Knife Carrier A (wanting to kill you) or Knife Carrier B (returning knife to kitchen), those are two completely different and completely separate motivations tied to two completely different actions. The problem you present is only a problem because the person with the gun has to guess the knife-carrier’s motivation. Either way, horrible analogy. Now, I we do agree that more than one motivation can exist for the same action, or position. But no one, other than possibly you, seems to have a problem with that concept. You’re the one seemingly unable to accept that opposition to abortion can be either religious or completely secular. Even though links have been provided to atheist groups who oppose abortion. You then seem to want to use **Bricker** as proxy for society at large. As I responded to you a week ago, the title of this thread is not “Bricker’s Opposition to Abortion”. You attempt to create that straw giant and attempt to slay it. So, I called you on your straw-manning and point out your failure in even trying to slay it. No extra charge. ---
**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:** [August 10, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1184 "2013-08-10T02:46:50Z")
Well, magellan didn’t comment on my analysis thus far, positively or negatively, which doesn’t encourage me to continue. Just as well, the third link doesn’t help his case, either. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1185 "2013-08-11T00:18:31Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The contrapositive is also instructive: there are things which are unquestionably harmful – alcohol is way up there on the list – and, while the outlawing of such things may not be irrational, it is unworkable. > > Meanwhile, total agreement. If someone could show that abortion really does harm to society, they might have a point. (I might still oppose a ban, on the grounds of “the lesser evil.”) But as far as the evidence goes, the availability of abortion provides actual social good. It expands women’s freedom, removes the burden of unwanted pregnancy, removes the burden of unwanted children, and may very well help reduce crime rates. I’m curious what a “workable” abortion ban would be like. Something like Ireland’s, where women with unwanted pregnancies just head to the U.K.? The same curiosity often prompts me to ask people advocating a ban what kind of penalties they had in mind. How much time did bootleggers get during Prohibition? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1186 "2013-08-11T02:43:26Z")
“Abortion tourism” is bad for the balance of trade. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1187 "2013-08-11T03:21:07Z")
Two tourists enter, one tourist leaves? ---
**Author:** ![legalsnugs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@legalsnugs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legalsnugs)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1188 "2013-08-11T09:19:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What?? > > The amount of revenue that goes to ANY organization is fixed by § 46.2-725 – the state doesn’t decide that Organization A gets 30% while Organization B gets 40%. > > On what basis do you say the state “…decides how much of the revenue goes to what organization?” The state has fixed the scheme as being the same for all organizations. > > In your view, if the state collects money for another entity and then pays it to that other entity, is that all that’s necessary to make it “state money?” > > Maybe this will answer the question: let’s say I get a refund from my Virginia state taxes this year. It comes to me as a check from the Virginia treasury. Is that “state money?” How are you so dense? Who do you think enacted § 46.2-725? And did you not read my cites? The state does NOT collect money for the entities. It sells tags and gives the entities IT decides on what money IT decided to give from said sale. Your tax refund question is not equatable at all and nice try to move the goal posts yet again. Why did you not address all the rest of the stuff in that post that you were in the WRONG about? You are a disingenuous idiot and I’m not going to waste any more time with you. You’re wrong and everyone knows it, including, I suspect, you. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1189 "2013-08-11T15:33:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > On what basis do you say the state “…decides how much of the revenue goes to what organization?” The state has fixed the scheme as being the same for all organizations. I’m assuming it’s on the basis that the state legislature feels free to amend the statue to redirect/add restrictions to the funding on an organization by organization basis. Surely a ‘fixed scheme’ with individual, named exceptions isn’t exactly a ‘fixed scheme’. > [@Bricker](#): > > In your view, if the state collects money for another entity and then pays it to that other entity, is that all that’s necessary to make it “state money?” Could the state adding on (enforceable, I assume) restrictions on how the money can be spent if it never owned the money? Could the state add on a ‘Bricker is not allowed to spend his tax refund on booze’ amendment? It certainly seems to me that it changes the situation from ‘neutrally passing along a portion of the plate fees’ to ‘we’ll give you a grant, unless we don’t like you’. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1190 "2013-08-11T16:14:18Z")
Well, there’s a middle ground - “we’ll give you a grant, but we’ll be dicks about it.” Out of curiosity, are donations to Planned Parenthood tax-deductible? If so, are they _still_ tax-deductible if you gave the money to PP for the express purpose of paying for abortions? This is a tangent, of course, but I’ve given up on getting further discussion from Bricker about post 1129 or from magellan01 about… pretty much anything. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1191 "2013-08-11T23:22:34Z")
> [@legalsnugs](#): > > How are you so dense? Who do you think enacted § 46.2-725? And did you not read my cites? The state does NOT collect money for the entities. It sells tags and gives the entities IT decides on what money IT decided to give from said sale. > > Your tax refund question is not equatable at all and nice try to move the goal posts yet again. Why did you not address all the rest of the stuff in that post that you were in the WRONG about? You are a disingenuous idiot and I’m not going to waste any more time with you. You’re wrong and everyone knows it, including, I suspect, you. Declaring victory, eh? Care to explain WHY my tax refund question is not relevant? It’s precisely the same: state collects money from me that it is obligated to return to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1192 "2013-08-11T23:26:51Z")
> [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > I’m assuming it’s on the basis that the state legislature feels free to amend the statue to redirect/add restrictions to the funding on an organization by organization basis. Surely a ‘fixed scheme’ with individual, named exceptions isn’t exactly a ‘fixed scheme’. So far as I know, the abortion restriction is sui generis – no other organization that has requested a license plate has had their request modified in any way by the legislature. > [@](#): > > Could the state adding on (enforceable, I assume) restrictions on how the money can be spent if it never owned the money? Could the state add on a ‘Bricker is not allowed to spend his tax refund on booze’ amendment? The state refuses to collect the money in the first place unless the restriction is accepted. > [@](#): > > It certainly seems to me that it changes the situation from ‘neutrally passing along a portion of the plate fees’ to ‘we’ll give you a grant, unless we don’t like you’. It may change it – but it doesn’t make it state money. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2013, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1193 "2013-08-12T00:01:57Z")
Well, “state money” is like “personhood”, just a label. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1194 "2013-08-12T02:05:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The question is whether valid arguments exist. **Bricker** pointed you to non-Christians—even atheists—who hold a pro-life position. Perhaps you missed that link more than the one time it was mentioned. But let me help you with the results of a quick Google search. Though I’m sure you’ll be equally able to ignore the existence of these arguments, as well. > > [A Secular Case Against Abortion - Pro-Life Humanists](http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/) > > [The Atheist Argument Against Abortion • Atheist, Intermarried](http://www.skepticink.com/atheistintermarried/2012/11/27/the-atheist-argument-against-abortion/) > > [Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage](http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html) > > [The Best Pro-Life Arguments for Secular Audiences](http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-best-pro-life-arguments-for-secular-audiences) > > [http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/pro-life\_atheist.html](http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/pro-life_atheist.html) > > [Pro-life atheists invade the American Atheist Convention - LifeSite](http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-atheists-invade-the-american-atheist-convention/) > > [A Secular Case Against Abortion » Internet Infidels](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html) > > [Confessions of a Pro-Life Atheist, Why I Fight Abortion - LifeNews.com](http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/) > > [http://www.dailypaul.com/293806/an-atheist-against-abortion](http://www.dailypaul.com/293806/an-atheist-against-abortion) > > [http://thebelltowers.com/2013/05/01/pro-life-without-god/](http://thebelltowers.com/2013/05/01/pro-life-without-god/) > But perhaps you’d prefer, for a change, to watch, listen & ignore, here: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKtDVL\_EmYM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKtDVL_EmYM) > _Mods, may I suggest an “Ignore” feature that doesn’t require one to be signed in in order to save one from further exposure to the dishonorable and hard of thinking?_ How many of those sites call for easy access to free birth control? Since they have no religious reason, they are all pro-birth control. Right? Funny YouTube video - gynotician: https://www.youtube.com/embed/yzM6D8-oRQc?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque ---
**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:** [August 12, 2013, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1195 "2013-08-12T03:11:20Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > How many of those sites call for easy access to free birth control? Since they have no religious reason, they are all pro-birth control. Right? I don’t think magellan’s the one to ask. He slapped the list together from a google search, I’d be surprised if he actually read any of the entries. I don’t recall the first three making any such reference to birth control, and that’s as far as I got. The first was the longest, I’ll review… Ha, that didn’t take long. The page’s first paragraph says: > [@](#): > > The following piece was originally submitted to The Humanist after their September/October edition of the Humanist featured an article by Marco Rosaire Rossi questioning the existence of pro-life atheists. The piece, though as extensive as possible in answering standard pro-choice arguments, was ultimately rejected because it didn’t answer a number of other questions (including contraception and early vs late-term abortion) that a 2,500 word limit simply could not allow. While I hope to work with the editor for a future re-write, here is the original piece for your reading: Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1196 "2013-08-12T11:22:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, “state money” is like “personhood”, just a label. Remind me never to ask you to hold the stakes for a bet. Sounds like you have an argument all ready for why that would become “your money.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1197 "2013-08-12T11:28:30Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > How many of those sites call for easy access to free birth control? Since they have no religious reason, they are all pro-birth control. Right? I have philosophical objections to government-funded free ANYTHING. But I am pro-birth control, and in the interest of saving lives would absolutely support funding easy access to free birth control. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2013, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1198 "2013-08-12T11:36:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Remind me never to ask you to hold the stakes for a bet. Sounds like you have an argument all ready for why that would become “your money.” Please. You’re delving into another definition-driven argument, even after you recognized that Virginia isn’t being even-handed on the issue. Do you think it really matters if it can be called “state money” or not? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1199 "2013-08-12T13:13:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Remind me never to ask you to hold the stakes for a bet. Sounds like you have an argument all ready for why that would become “your money.” If Delegate Gilbert’s amendment directing the money from the plates to the Virginia Pregnant Women Support Fund had passed would Planned Parenthood have been able to have someone arrested and charged with theft? Could Planned Parenthood/plate buyers have been able to successfully sue the government to get the funds? Could Planned Parenthood go to court now and get the ‘no using these funds for abortion’ amendment added by Gov. McDonnell overturned? It seems to me that somewhere between the money belonging to the plate purchasers, and belonging to Planned Parenthood that the state gained the power to decide who gets the money and how it can be spent. And if that power doesn’t make it ‘state money’ I’m curious what would. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1200 "2013-08-12T13:17:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Please. You’re delving into another definition-driven argument, even after you recognized that Virginia isn’t being even-handed on the issue. Do you think it really matters if it can be called “state money” or not? What matters is the acknowledgment of error on the point. If you are saying, “All right, it’s not ‘state money,’ but it’s just as bad, because A, B, and C,” that’s fine. You appear to wish to have the conversation about A, B, and C while skipping the acknowledgement, as though your skin will burn if you have to admit any error at all, even one from your side rather than you personally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=59) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=61)