I like how that link features a quote from someone named Julie Thielen who says: “As a society we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable”, which makes me ask: judged… by who?
Freely available or just free? Can a woman seeking an abortion be guaranteed an ultrasound appointment the same day? And I’ll casually argue against this or any other law that seeks to add medically unnecessary procedures for the purposes of propaganda.
So how about my thought experiment? Does the law define what an “ultrasound procedure” is, exactly, or can doctors find more “efficient” methods to carry it out, i.e. “please put your hand on this photocopier… I mean, ‘ultrasound machine’.”
Does it? I thought that the wording indicated that a list of clinics offering free ultrasounds would be provided and not that the ultrasound would be free at every provider.
Can somebody just post the text of the bill? I feel comfortable challenging Bricker all day, any day, on the illogic of his various rationalizations for bad laws, but if he’s going to start playing the “you haven’t even read it” card…
Nm
I think this is it.
Thanks, I’m reviewing it here, though it looks a little long to copy and paste. The provisions regarding ultrasounds include:
And sub (3g) says, in part:
Is “obstetric ultrasound” legally defined somewhere in Wisconsin law, because if not, I see an excellent opportunity for an end-run.
And there are repeated references to “a facility that offers ultrasounds at no cost” which is not the same as “the ultrasound is free” because there’s no indication in the bill for provisions for increasing the number of clinics who can and will offer ultrasounds at no cost, which means availability might be sharply limited, hence not free for a woman who wants the procedure done in a timely manner.
Bricker, did you read the law?
While I’m speculating, might there be a market for “No Hassle Ultrasound Clinics” in Wisconsin? Woman walks in, no appointment necessary, technician waves a wand at her, hands her a blurry picture of a fetus (can you prove it’s not hers? Where’s YOUR medical degree?), stamps her hand or whatever, and done.
Abortion Debate: Little Evidence Sonograms Change Minds, Doctors Say
The issue that make these newer sonogram laws particularly harassing is the mandatory viewing and justifying it by saying women can just close their eyes and plug their ears? (according to the Texas 5th Circuit Court of Appeals) That is beyond degrading. All of this is further exacerbated by the 24 hour waiting period between sonogram and procedure (requiring two office visits with a physician) with the additional cost of the sonogram to the procedure.
Offering women the option to view the image before the procedure is perfectly ethical and warranted. Some women actually appreciated it because the embryo/fetus at that stage looks relatively nothing like a human so they felt better about their decision. Some women were distressed by it, but still went ahead the procedure. Other women had no reaction at all. However, requiring a sonogram separate from the abortion procedure (lets be honest, it is typically already part of the abortion procedure), mandating that the patient view it (or close their eyes and plug their ears :mad:), in addition to compelling the physician to speak about the image when none of said speech pertains to the individual woman’s health (this is totally beyond “informing” her about abortion alternatives or expressing the ‘state’s interest in the potential life of the fetus’), and then come back 24 hour later for the procedure? Totally harassing, degrading and unnecessary.
In fact, I venture to guess why these newer sonogram laws are going beyond the previous enacted laws that* mandate a sonogram, but optional viewing* - to mandated sonograms, mandated viewing, in addition to compelling physician speech 24 hours before the procedure, is precisely because viewing the image on it’s own did not change any woman’s mind about undergoing the abortion.
I suspect these ‘No Hassle Ultrasound Clinics’, are really just CPCs and the law is designed to coerce women to go there for “free” sonograms or pay out of pocket in order to receive one from a legitimate medical clinic.
Not that I don’t agree the law is bullshit, but Wisconsin at least says:
So it’s forcing the doctor to jump though this particular hoop, but the woman doesn’t have to follow. Of course, it might depend on how picky someone’s willing to be on parsing “woman declines to view” versus “and reviewed with her.” I’m sure some pregnant pro-lifer will be happy to rat out any doctor she feels isn’t “reviewing” hard enough.
You misunderstand. Bryan Ekers is saying that a business opportunity exists to open “abortion ultrasound clinics” that conform to the letter of the law (thus the importance of there being no legal definition of obstetric ultrasound) but in fact just rubberstamp the ultrasound. A quick 5 min in and out with the legal paperwork in hand., as it were.
Yes, that’s what I meant, if “obstetric ultrasound” is not legally defined, I see an business opportunity.
Courts won’t fall for nonsense like that. They will look to standard medical practice and other evidence for definitions of “obstetric ultrasound.”
Anyone decent.
So it’ll be up to doctors to write the guidelines that guide the courts, then? What if enough Wisconsin doctors say “… yeah, what the Fly-By-Night Obstetric Ultrasound Company (‘No Fetus Can Beat Us!’) does is borderline acceptable medical practice, for the purposes of pre-abortion ultrasounds…”
Like… Canadians?
I gotta say, that’s a pretty douche-y attitude for you to take. Bricker held a position, then he listened to arguments and change his position. Then when someone attacked him for holding a position he no longer held, he pointed that out. And you’re attacking him for it?
If there’s one thing the SDMB needs it’s more people who are willing to even consider changing their mind based on reasoned argument, and complaining when they do so sure isn’t going to help that cause…
No, for it being a habit of his. He douches out, gets the whole board pissed at him, then backs down and asks for praise for his “willingness to change”. He’s done it many times before, and it’s surprising you haven’t noticed.
Note that this time he hasn’t even bothered to come up with a cover story to explain this change of alleged principle.
Yeah, I pointed that out to him on page 1 of the thread. I’m sure he just missed that post.