# 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:** 80
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1581 "2013-08-27T07:10:40Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Again, your position is the one that’s nonsense. You don’t think it is because you have a view that a brainless fetus is a person. How about after the fetus develops a brain? At that point, would you agree with **Bricker**? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1582 "2013-08-27T16:23:13Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > To the whole “just let eveyone follow their conscience” stuff and my stating that such a policy leads to chaos. It doesn’t if it doesn’t affect you. See example with colors above > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You assume, as per your conscience, that the fact that they affect others is relevant. That is a belief, that is following your conscience and forcing others to do what you want. I assume nothing. You speed, you can hit someone. No building regulations? Boom, building collapse. Unfair elections? Sudden we have mole people in charge and good luck trying to get permission to build a skyscraper in the kingdom of the moles On the other hand, abortion? Affects…the mom, the doctor, and nobody else really. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Of course, a big chunk of the abortion debate is personhood. You have not solve it by declaring it finished. Nobody’s declaring it finished. I simply support abortion, I know people like you will continue to fight against that. But lets take the logical conclusion of both our sides. If you win, fetuses will be declared persons and nobody would be able to have an abortion. If I win, I allow every mother to decide for themselves whether or not their conscience tells them its the right move or not. Some will have abortions, some won’t. No decision at all is reached on personhood and I’m fine with that > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I agree that legally in the US fetuses don’t have the exact same right as other people. > That in itself doesn’t make it a scientific fact, simply a legal fact. I’m fine with that > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The killing innocents usually doesn’t make me happy. > What difference does it make to you if your neighbour beats the crap out of her husband? Why are you so hung up about it? > I’s a sad day when the measure of a law is if it affects me directly. Because he might beat me up too. On the other hand, the only “victim” in abortion is the fetus and no one else, ever. It is biologically impossible for any one of you pro-lifers to be aborted, so it will never affect you, ever. With pretty much any other law, you can say that it can come back to hurt you personally. You can be assaulted, killed, raped, robbed, exploited, etc. so we have laws to protect people from that. No one that exists as persons now will ever be aborted. So it’ll never affect you If you want to stop abortions, I suggest the much more effect way of supporting comprehensive liberal sex education, free contraception and condoms for people, and health care for all people. That will get you much more traction than standing in front of a building and screaming at women > [@magellan01](#): > > Perhaps a better analogy are states with helmet laws, which require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. > > Question: for those arguing against Bricker: > > 1)How do you feel about helmet laws? > 2) how would you feel about a law that allowed motorcycle riders to not wear a helmet only after they watched a video about head trauma in motorcycle accidents? 1. I’m fine with helmet laws and I’m fine without them. 2. I have no strong opinion on that. If people want to make that law, great. If not, oh well ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1583 "2013-08-27T17:45:10Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’m saying it’s hypocritical to favor laws that exempt your own moral minority from having to pay taxes to support something you oppose…but denying me the same moral exemption. > > Why do I have to pay for nuclear weapons, yet people who oppose abortion are assured that no tax money ever goes for that? Why is their morality respected, but mine is not? > > That’s hypocrisy. You have decided not to pursue the legal avenues that could let to you desired outcome. I fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite. > [@](#): > > Okay, fair enough. Didn’t know that. Imagine I’m addressing Randall Terry. Ok. It’s simply to put the ideas into more perspective. > [@magellan01](#): > > Perhaps a better analogy are states with helmet laws, which require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. > > Question: for those arguing against Bricker: > > 1)How do you feel about helmet laws? > 2) how would you feel about a law that allowed motorcycle riders to not wear a helmet only after they watched a video about head trauma in motorcycle accidents? 1. I’m OK with or without them. 2. A 10-minute video? Sure. A 78-hour video? NO. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > It doesn’t if it doesn’t affect you. See example with colors above > > I assume nothing. You speed, you can hit someone. No building regulations? Boom, building collapse. Unfair elections? Sudden we have mole people in charge and good luck trying to get permission to build a skyscraper in the kingdom of the moles > > On the other hand, abortion? Affects…the mom, the doctor, and nobody else really. You keep asumming that the fact that it doesn’t affect another person is relevant. It’s axiomatic to your point. Your belief (as per the recommendation) should not affect a person’s conscience of not giving a fuck about others. This will be lthe last time I will counter the line “abortion doesn’t affect anyone but the mum and doc”. The heart of the abortion debate is specifically that, you haven’t found the answer. > [@](#): > > Nobody’s declaring it finished. I simply support abortion, I know people like you will continue to fight against that. But lets take the logical conclusion of both our sides. If you win, fetuses will be declared persons and nobody would be able to have an abortion. If I win, I allow every mother to decide for themselves whether or not their conscience tells them its the right move or not. Some will have abortions, some won’t. No decision at all is reached on personhood and I’m fine with that OK, we agree to disagree. > [@](#): > > I’m fine with that 🙂 > [@](#): > > Because he might beat me up too. On the other hand, the only “victim” in abortion is the fetus and no one else, ever. It is biologically impossible for any one of you pro-lifers to be aborted, so it will never affect you, ever. With pretty much any other law, you can say that it can come back to hurt you personally. You can be assaulted, killed, raped, robbed, exploited, etc. so we have laws to protect people from that. No one that exists as persons now will ever be aborted. So it’ll never affect you Let’s say she won’t. > [@](#): > > If you want to stop abortions, I suggest the much more effect way of supporting comprehensive liberal sex education, free contraception and condoms for people, and health care for all people. That will get you much more traction than standing in front of a building and screaming at women I would support measures that reduce the number of abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1584 "2013-08-27T20:27:39Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > You didn’t actually say “terrified that fewer abortions would be performed”: > That’s pretty specific as to what pro-choice people are supposedly terrified about. > > Here are some of the first replies to your “terrified” post: > > Your response: OK. As I hinted above, I was going by my recollection alone, and welcomed specific counter-examples. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1585 "2013-08-27T21:02:40Z")
Don’t worry about it, just memory issues. I got 'em, too. Course, I earned mine, you’re just getting old. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1586 "2013-08-28T16:13:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Don’t worry about it, just memory issues. I got 'em, too. Course, I earned mine, you’re just getting old. It’s that or the booze. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1587 "2013-08-28T17:41:05Z")
There are any number of perfectly good alternatives to booze. For getting old, just one. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1588 "2013-08-28T20:39:08Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You keep asumming that the fact that it doesn’t affect another person is relevant. It’s axiomatic to your point. > Your belief (as per the recommendation) should not affect a person’s conscience of not giving a fuck about others. What are you saying exactly? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > This will be lthe last time I will counter the line “abortion doesn’t affect anyone but the mum and doc”. The heart of the abortion debate is specifically that, you haven’t found the answer. I disagree that’s the heart of the debate. To me, it seems that for pro-life people, the heart of it is not that it didn’t affect anyone, its irrelevant. Abortion should be banned because its wrong. Even if it doesn’t affect anyone, you consider the fetus human enough to have rights and its wrong to kill one. On the other hand, for pro-choicers like me, I consider the heart of the debate to be whether or not the fetus deserves rights. That’s why many of us are against late term abortions (which are rare and a bit of a scare-tactic though) because at that point, some pro-choicers also believe the fetus deserves rights. If a pro-choicer believes that the fetus is a person deserving of rights, the argument of the mother’s bodily autonomy would be less convincing. And neither would they mind, thinking logically, if the abortion affects no one if they too believed it should have rights I don’t think either side gives a shit if abortion affects no one or everyone. Its simply that its the easiest counter to the pro-life argument of not letting people follow their conscience. “We haven’t determined yet if the fetus deserves rights or not, so therefore people should be able to follow their conscience, and therefore if you want to force someone else to not have an abortion, my first comeback will be ‘what’s it to you?’” > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Let’s say she won’t. Who won’t do what? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I would support measures that reduce the number of abortions. Do you support those specific measures I mentioned (sex ed., contraception and condoms for people, health care) and, more importantly because those work, do you support them MORE than you support simply banning abortions? To put it another way, if you had to assign importance to any of these 4 methods with the goal of reducing abortions, which one would you support the most and which one the least? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1589 "2013-09-14T23:02:00Z")
[He just doesn’t stop giving us reasons to hate him . . .](http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-veto-aided-controversial-united-sportsmen-group/article_a4763452-57b8-53ee-a0da-37d4de169293.html) > [@](#): > > Gov. Scott Walker’s use of his veto pen on June 30 helped keep alive a $500,000 grant that the politically connected United Sportsmen of Wisconsin Foundation later won — then lost when it was revealed the group misled state officials about its tax status and its president was cited for illegal bear hunting. > > Walker’s budget veto removed a provision calling for federal funds to pay for most of the two-year grant, leaving intact language stating that the grant would be paid for with state money. > > \ > > Former Department of Natural Resources Secretary George Meyer said Tuesday that Walker’s veto helped both United Sportsmen and the DNR because the grant likely would have violated strict federal guidelines about how the money could be used. > > “The veto of federal funds saved the program,” said Meyer, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. “Otherwise the program would’ve been illegal under federal law.” > > Critics charge that the budget language authorizing the grant, which was inserted by former Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder, was tailor-made for United Sportsmen, whose parent organization endorsed Walker and whose officials include former Suder chief of staff Luke Hilgemann. > > In his veto message, Walker said he was concerned that the purpose of the grant — to recruit and train people to hunt, fish and trap — may not be an “appropriate” use for federal funds under the Wildlife Restoration Act and the Sport Fish Restoration Act. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1590 "2013-09-14T23:46:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [He just doesn’t stop giving us reasons to hate him . . .](http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-veto-aided-controversial-united-sportsmen-group/article_a4763452-57b8-53ee-a0da-37d4de169293.html) I don’t know if I’m getting this, but here’s what I read: [ul] [li]Wisconsin had a program that gave grant money[/li][li]The legislature passed a bill that would have allowed federal funds to be used to fund the grant[/li][li]Walker vetoed that bill[/li][li]United Sportsmen of Wisconsin Foundation won the grant [/li][li]United Sportsmen of Wisconsin Foundation lost the grant because they didn’t have the right tax status[/li][li]United Sportsmen of Wisconsin Foundation’s president hunted bears illegally[/li][/ul] Therefore, Walker sucks. Huh? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2013, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1591 "2013-09-15T01:20:18Z")
I see the point, really, what damage could this do to such a sterling reputation? ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2013, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1592 "2013-09-15T06:35:40Z")
I suppose it could be argued that the sportsman are unnecessary inserting objects into bears (at least from the bears point of view). ---
**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:** [January 10, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1593 "2014-01-10T23:48:23Z")
Resurrecting this thread because of a [new study](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/10/3145181/study-ultrasound-abortion/): The findings are essentially this – looking at an ultrasound does not change women’s decision to have an abortion. Women really are capable of making this decision without ‘help’ from the government. I’ll also bring up that in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16453109&postcount=181), **Bricker** says that he would oppose mandatory ultrasound requirements if it could be proved that it had no affect on their decisions to have an abortion. So, **Bricker** , do you stand by your statement, and now oppose such requirements? ---
**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:** [January 10, 2014, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1594 "2014-01-10T23:52:33Z")
Also, to **Bricker** – you were [very wrong about me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16447066&postcount=87). I didn’t believe that the mandatory ultrasounds would change women’s minds – because I believe women are actually smart and wise enough to think through big decisions like this about their bodies on their own, without ‘help’. I was correct (and you were not). And even though these ultrasound requirements have no affect on actual abortions, I oppose them just as strongly – because _no one should be mandated to have medical procedures performed if they and their doctor do not believe it’s necessary._ I believe that, honestly, and very, very strongly. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1595 "2014-01-11T00:36:03Z")
I’m mighty happy to hear this, as, alas, I was afraid that the extra pressure, fear, and emotional stress would have the effect of changing women’s minds, or at least deterring them, in fairly large numbers. I was afraid this evil, manipulative, and invasive approach would actually be effective. Damn happy to be wrong on this one. (And Walker et al still belong in the pit for having tried this odious assault against human liberty.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1596 "2014-01-11T17:58:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Resurrecting this thread because of a [new study](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/10/3145181/study-ultrasound-abortion/): > > The findings are essentially this – looking at an ultrasound does not change women’s decision to have an abortion. Women really are capable of making this decision without ‘help’ from the government. > > I’ll also bring up that in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16453109&postcount=181), **Bricker** says that he would oppose mandatory ultrasound requirements if it could be proved that it had no affect on their decisions to have an abortion. > > So, **Bricker** , do you stand by your statement, and now oppose such requirements? The study says that a small number of women did change their minds: > [@](#): > > Patients opted to view the ultrasound image 42.5% of the time. Nearly all pregnancies (98.8%) were terminated: 98.4% of pregnancies among women who viewed their ultrasound images and 99.0% of pregnancies among the patients who did not. So there is a tiny difference – maybe not even significant statistically. What I said at the time was that I expected a significant number…I might have tossed out 25%. If it had been, say, ten percent, I might have made a case that the benefit still outweighed the imposition on liberty. But this, I concede, was not. I have only read the abstract, so I may reverse my opinion again if the study methodology is flawed in some way, but based on this evidence, I agree: the law is not justified. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1597 "2014-01-11T18:24:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But this, I concede, was not. I have only read the abstract, so I may reverse my opinion again if the study methodology is flawed in some way, but based on this evidence, I agree: the law is not justified. Bravo, **Bricker.** And even if the difference is significant to some statisticians, it doesn’t follow that the mandatory requirements caused it. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1598 "2014-01-11T21:18:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The study says that a small number of women did change their minds: > > So there is a tiny difference – maybe not even significant statistically. > > What I said at the time was that I expected a significant number…I might have tossed out 25%. If it had been, say, ten percent, I might have made a case that the benefit still outweighed the imposition on liberty. > > But this, I concede, was not. I have only read the abstract, so I may reverse my opinion again if the study methodology is flawed in some way, but based on this evidence, I agree: the law is not justified. Thank you, **Bricker** , this speaks well of you. On a more personal note, do you concede that you were wrong about me in particular – do you understand that my opposition to the law really is about the freedom of women to make decisions about their bodies? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1599 "2014-01-12T15:47:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Thank you, **Bricker** , this speaks well of you. > > On a more personal note, do you concede that you were wrong about me in particular – do you understand that my opposition to the law really is about the freedom of women to make decisions about their bodies? Again, subject to future evidence…yes. I should not have suggested otherwise – you’re the one who knows your motives much more than I. ---
**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:** [January 12, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1600 "2014-01-12T15:58:39Z")
Thank you, **Bricker**. In light of all this, do you better understand the motivations of pro-choice folks such as myself? At least part of the pro-life motivation seems pretty easy to understand, to me at least. I understand that many believe that with each abortion, a baby is being killed. My motivation is this: the right to bodily autonomy, which includes the right to expel _anything or anyone from inside your body if you want it out, for any reason and at any time_, is the most fundamental right humans have. From this right, in my opinion, comes the right to be free from violence, including sexual violence. And this right in particular hits a nerve for at least this reason (to me) – men already have this right… pretty much universally and everywhere on earth. Pretty much no government or authority tells men that in any situation they don’t have the right to expel something or someone from inside their body, if they don’t want it there. Only women, in many countries, have this right restricted – they are told “in some circumstances, you are not able to decide what can enter and/or remain inside your body”. And to me, that’s immensely wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=79) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=81)