# 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:** 76
**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 21, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1501 "2013-08-21T17:04:56Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > So, at least as a matter of abortion law (ignoring free speech and other constitutional protections),\* the question is whether a law designed to deliver an emotional argument to women seeks to hinder rather than inform a woman’s free choice. On the one hand, this is something more than just “information.” On the other hand, the fact that specific information has emotional content would pretty much eliminate entirely the state’s right to seek to persuade the woman not to have an abortion. Can I get as clarification on this, particularly the last sentence? I assume the emotional content is the very _point_ of an ultrasound law - wouldn’t the state see this as trying to persuade the woman not to abort? Are they preemptively barred from doing so, not allowed to use emotion to persuade? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1502 "2013-08-21T17:22:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t have any penalties in mind for a woman who procures an abortion, or one who ends one through her negligence. > > I would like to see penalties for medical practitioners who assist in such actions, though. Bricker, I know it’s quite a few posts back, but I am a little confused by this statement. You apparently see abortion as murder (you have referred to it as such in this thead). The expectant mother is the one seeking out, and paying for, this act of “murder.” But you don’t have in mind a penalty for her? Are there other crimes - and I honestly do not know - where the person who knowingly initiates and arranges for a criminal act to take place has no legal responsibility? Intent is not the issue here. The woman seeking the abortion intends, as far as I can tell, to commit what you see as murder, or to have one committed on her behalf. The closest I can come up with would be “murder for hire,” but in that case the person who seeks the murder is certainly punished. But from this statement, the only ones you would want to see punished would be the doctors who provded the service. Is that accurate? ---
**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:** [August 21, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1503 "2013-08-21T17:24:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Can I get as clarification on this, particularly the last sentence? I assume the emotional content is the very _point_ of an ultrasound law - wouldn’t the state see this as trying to persuade the woman not to abort? Are they preemptively barred from doing so, not allowed to use emotion to persuade? I was a little unclear. The state may see this as trying to persuade the woman not to abort (though I wouldn’t rule out more nefarious purposes). They are not preemptively barred from from persuading, and the question is whether emotional manipulation counts as persuasion or should be considered an effort at hindrance of choice. The point I was trying to make in my “on one hand, on the other hand” phrasing was that if we read the existing principles as barring \*any \*attempt at persuasion that involves emotional content, then we are radically limiting (some might say eliminating) the ability of the state to persuade. Does that make it clear? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1504 "2013-08-21T17:58:59Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Bricker, I know it’s quite a few posts back, but I am a little confused by this statement. You apparently see abortion as murder (you have referred to it as such in this thead). The expectant mother is the one seeking out, and paying for, this act of “murder.” But you don’t have in mind a penalty for her? Are there other crimes - and I honestly do not know - where the person who knowingly initiates and arranges for a criminal act to take place has no legal responsibility? Intent is not the issue here. The woman seeking the abortion intends, as far as I can tell, to commit what you see as murder, or to have one committed on her behalf. The closest I can come up with would be “murder for hire,” but in that case the person who seeks the murder is certainly punished. But from this statement, the only ones you would want to see punished would be the doctors who provded the service. > > Is that accurate? Yes. While it’s the death of a human, I don’t see the culpability of the pregnant mother as so dramatic as to merit criminal sanction. Of course there are many different cases and states of mind. But the purpose I have in mind is not punitive – it’s saving lives. A woman won’t be responsible for too many deaths via abortion – unless she’s an abortion provider. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1505 "2013-08-21T18:00:54Z")
Should abortion providers be prosecuted for murder? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1506 "2013-08-21T18:22:32Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Should abortion providers be prosecuted for murder? No. ---
**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 21, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1507 "2013-08-21T18:36:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I was a little unclear. > > The state may see this as trying to persuade the woman not to abort (though I wouldn’t rule out more nefarious purposes). They are not preemptively barred from from persuading, and the question is whether emotional manipulation counts as persuasion or should be considered an effort at hindrance of choice. > > The point I was trying to make in my “on one hand, on the other hand” phrasing was that if we read the existing principles as barring \*any \*attempt at persuasion that involves emotional content, then we are radically limiting (some might say eliminating) the ability of the state to persuade. > > Does that make it clear? Yes, and I can see governmental use of emotional persuasion in other fields (gruesome pictures on cigarette packs, public-service announcements that use violent and/or emotional imagery) but I don’t know offhand of other cases targeted at specific individuals, nor one that requires their active participation in something as elaborate and (to hear some women describe it) uncomfortable as an ultrasound. And to be a bit cynical, I figure the law has already served its “nefarious purpose”, in the sense of giving Wisconsin Republicans something they can display to their base as an accomplishment, while efforts to increase the numbers of jobs are harder and likely to irritate at least some of their financial backers. I admit some curiosity as to how a law like this would actually get enforced (or even if anyone cares if it’s enforced at all) and since humans have never been short on ingenuity, what workarounds will appear. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1508 "2013-08-21T18:42:07Z")
What that you say? You cannot afford the extra expense? Boy, are you in luck, we have a whole long list of pregnancy crisis centers that will happily provide you with a free sonogram, and explain the image presented to you in complete detail. ---
**Author:** ![Ograbme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Ograbme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ograbme)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1509 "2013-08-22T04:18:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What that you say? You cannot afford the extra expense? Boy, are you in luck, we have a whole long list of pregnancy crisis centers that will happily provide you with a free sonogram, and explain the image presented to you in complete detail. Will I have to look at pictures of the pothole that could’ve been fixed with those tax dollars before I accept public assistance? ---
**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 22, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1510 "2013-08-22T22:35:35Z")
Bricker, what if America was majority Hindu, and there was a law that you view a video of a slaughterhouse before ordering any beef? Is that law okay? What if you had to have the cow’s head paraded in front of you before you eat, is that okay? What if, because too much beef can contribute to colon cancer, they stick a finger up your ass before you eat a steak? Is that okay? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1511 "2013-08-22T22:39:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Bricker, what if America was majority Hindu, and there was a law that you view a video of a slaughterhouse before ordering any beef? Is that law okay? What if you had to have the cow’s head paraded in front of you before you eat, is that okay? Does this majority Hindu America still have the same constitution and case law? > [@](#): > > What if, because too much beef can contribute to colon cancer, they stick a finger up your ass before you eat a steak? Is that okay? Same question. Although I daresay Ruth’s Chris clientele may change. ---
**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 22, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1512 "2013-08-22T22:49:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does this majority Hindu America still have the same constitution and case law? Let’s assume it’s identical. Except for the prevailing religion. > [@](#): > > Same question. Although I daresay Ruth’s Chris clientele may change. “Why do the chairs here have holes in the seats?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1513 "2013-08-22T23:09:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Let’s assume it’s identical. Except for the prevailing religion. Then I think the video requirement would be acceptable, and the cow’s head requirement acceptable, but the finger up the ass thing - probably not. Of course, in a majority Hindu country, I’m assuming the whole beef industry is radically changed anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1514 "2013-08-23T00:23:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then I think the video requirement would be acceptable, and the cow’s head requirement acceptable, but the finger up the ass thing - probably not. > > Of course, in a majority Hindu country, I’m assuming the whole beef industry is radically changed anyway. It’s only the cow’s from India that are sacred anyway (at least according to the gentleman from India as he loaded up his plate with roast beef at a lunch party my parents held). ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1515 "2013-08-23T04:50:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My perspective is that they should probably use birth control, especially if they’re not Catholic. > > If they are Catholic, I think there’s value in finding a confessor who understands the totality of one’s circumstances. If we’re going to couch things in terms of sin, I’d find it sinful that the Catholic church tries to stop the poorest people from having access to birth control that would reduce some of their misery: > **[Care2 is the world's largest social network for good, a community of over 40...](https://www.care2.com/)** > > Largest online community empowering people to lead a healthy and green lifestyle while taking action on important causes such as human rights, animal welfare and global warming. ---
**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 23, 2013, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1516 "2013-08-23T05:11:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then I think the video requirement would be acceptable, and the cow’s head requirement acceptable, but the finger up the ass thing - probably not. Opposed to government-mandated invasive procedures, are we? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1517 "2013-08-23T07:57:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Opposed to government-mandated invasive procedures, are we? My answer does not rest on its invasiveness, but it’s effectiveness. A finger up the ass isn’t the way a medical professional tests for colon cancer, much less a waiter. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1518 "2013-08-23T08:00:31Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > If we’re going to couch things in terms of sin, I’d find it sinful that the Catholic church tries to stop the poorest people from having access to birth control that would reduce some of their misery: > [Care2 is the world's largest social network for good, a community of over 40 million people standing together, starting petitions and sharing stories that inspire action.](http://www.care2.com/causes/catholic-church-blocks-birth-control-for-poor-in-philippines.html) Ok. And is your concept of sin derived from some particular framework? What is “sin,” according to you? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1519 "2013-08-23T16:34:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My answer does not rest on its invasiveness, but it’s effectiveness. A finger up the ass isn’t the way a medical professional tests for colon cancer, much less a waiter. This [cite](http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/bowel-cancer/diagnosis/bowel-cancer-tests) would seem to indicate that a diagnosis may begin with a rectal exam. Would this not indicate that a finger up the ass is a part of the process and would certainly cause at least some people to stop eating red meat? I’d be willing to stop this requirement if, over the course of a year, the number of people eating red meat did not go down by at least 25%. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1520 "2013-08-23T16:53:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok. And is your concept of sin derived from some particular framework? What is “sin,” according to you? I’d call cutting off birth control access from the poor and desperate wrong-headed and immoral and hypocritical. Others might think of it as sinful. Is there a huge difference? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=75) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=77)