That’s a pretty small nit to pick- I don’t think anyone has said that that is the only reason they oppose the law. In fact, you’re not even denying (or are you?) that at least part of the law’s purpose is in fact to serve as a nuisance/difficulty to women who want an abortion.
I am denying that.
However, I now believe that the purpose of mandating surgical center certification AND a doctor with hospital privileges for every abortion is nuisance-related. I withdraw my support for those laws.
Ok. I commend you for withdrawing support for the other parts of the law. I still disagree with you on the other- I think at least a part of the ultrasound requirement (as evidenced by the other states who required an invasive procedure) is meant to increase the difficulty of getting an abortion. And even if that’s not part of the purpose (which I dispute, though it’s not particularly important to my opposition), it still serves as a nuisance and makes getting an abortion more difficult- even if you think it’s only a small nuisance, or only a little more difficult.
It really couldn’t be measured but I am sure that people changed their mind before the law and after the law. I would assume that this would be roughly the same percentage as I doubt that very many people would think, “Gee, an ultrasound is a lot of hassle, I think I’ll just have a kid. Much easier”.
Of course, the emotional impact of having to deal with a hassle NOW is larger than having to deal with a much larger hassle in the future so I could be way off base.
The “hassle” might involve trips out of town or time off work that some less privileged people just can’t do.
Somebody finally fell for his praise trolling. At least it takes longer now than it used to.
I think we should require anyone who wants to buy a gun must first watch graphic videos of gunshots wounds. I’m just trying to reduce the instances of gun violence, which you must agree is a worthwhile goal. Let’s try it for a year, and if gun violence doesn’t decrease, then I’ll agree it was just a nuisance.
That’s a completely arbitrary and baseless standard.
OK. Get the legislature to agree to it.
The abortion issue is quote unlike most other issues in the US, and I think that is mainly because many of the pro-choice people still think abortion is bad. They would much rather that women didn’t have abortions even if they don’t want to outlaw the procedure. And they are generally receptive to much tighter restrictions than what the SCOTUS is willing to enforce. Note that I said “generally” since it is not true for the vaginal ultrasound mandate.
I would stay away from analogies on this issue as few are going to work.
You can’t get the majority of the American people to agree with your extremist anti-abortion viewpoint on this issue. You know this. So rather than put your effort into ways that really do help reduce the number of abortions (sex education, paid maternity leave and the like) you and your fellow anti-abortionists play these stupid petty little games.
Every single one of these stupid laws only serves as fodder for the pro-choice movement.
Cite?
Most pro-choices like myself view abortion as a less than ideal choice that still should not be made illegal. I think a woman who finds herself in need of an abortion should look closely at why she needs one and see what she can to do to avoid needing one in the future. This may include better birth control, getting a health condition under control or any one of many issues.
I don’t think she needs tighter restrictions on that choice. What sort of restrictions do you mean?
I got the legislature of Wisconsin to agree to ultrasound.
So anything passed by a state legislature is OK by you? Gun control, immigration, tax increases, spending; so long as the legislature passes it, you’re OK? I will remember that.
That was you?!? You son of a bitch.
But you’ll never get the majority of the American public to agree with you that abortion should be made illegal, especially in the first three months. You know that.
This law may stop a few women from having an abortion. It will also no doubt remind even more of their fundamental belief in the pro-choice stance and the need to vote for legislators who agree with that stance.
Why Abortion Is Not Like Other Issues
Note that ~70% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the 2nd trimester and that " About 8 in 10 Americans believe abortion is taking a life".
See above. And just to be clear, I don’t think there should be any restrictions, up to the point of viability. I’m one of the 2 in 10 Americans who don’t think abortion is “taking a life”.
I was reporting what the situation is surrounding this issue, not my own personal view. Was that really not clear?
Okay, then you can pay for it, or more generically the legislature that is adding this medically unnecessary additional procedure can allocate funds to ensure any woman in the venue who wants an ultrasound can get one quickly and free of charge and if they cannot do so, the requirement should be waived.
And even then it’s still a bad law, and I presented my general argument against bad laws here.
As a thought experiment, how exactly is the law phrased? Is it just something along the lines of “the woman must get an ultrasound procedure” ? If that’s the case, I suggest all abortion clinics in the state get a machine, any machine, stick a label on it saying “ultrasound”, and have the woman rest her hand on it for five seconds. There. If you want to say that’s not a “real” ultrasound, I invite you to show us your medical credentials. Otherwise, the ultrasound procedure is completed to the satisfaction of the medical professionals involved and that should satisfy the letter of the law.
So now I’m guessing you haven’t even read this law you’ve been arguing against.
It does provide that the ultrasound is free.
That’s not what I said. Learn to read, please.