If “the images are required to be displayed for” [the woman] during the physician review, how exactly can she decline to view? By turning her head or closing her eyes. Basically all it’s saying is that she can’t be penalized for closing her eyes or turning her head. That’s not much of a choice, IMO.
Again, I think women should have the option to view the sonogram and given the option most do. When it is “required to be displayed for her and reviewed with her by a physician”? That’s not truly optional if the only way to decline in actuality is by closing your eyes, turning away and plugging your ears, all while undergoing the actual procedure performed in a pretty tight proximity.
I would argue that it doesn’t give them more information. It just increases the chance that emotion will colour their interpretation of the information. Much like the moral outrage that people feel regarding the whole Zimmerman case has coloured their feelings as to the acquittal.
Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses
Well, Ms. Smith, we have a wide variety of transducers for you to choose from. Our, latest, the VUT-2000 was made from a cast of Tiger Woods’ penis and is rapidly becoming our most popular device. It has 5 speeds, and comes with a satisfaction guarantee!
You’re only okay with this law because you’re against abortion. What if a woman puts a blindfold on and earplugs in her ears on during the procedure? Would it be okay to mandate we snatch them from her skull?
The right way to reduce abortions? (and you’ll never stop them) Engage in actions the right wing hates like decent sex education, increasing access to better forms of birth control, providing food stamps, providing national health care for everyone in this country including obstetrical and gynecological care, acting like every other fucking civilized nation on the planet and providing at least a few months of paid maternity leave. On-site daycare, flexible working hours and decent wages for the middle class instead of tax breaks for the one-percent would also help.
Forcing women to undergo medical procedures that may not necessary in the name of your religion and your morals does not fall into that category. Why you don’t just demand the right to have a few dozen screaming, armed, religious extremists, anti-abortionists in the room with her? Oh I know. Make her wear something on her chest for the rest of her life. How about a bright scarlet A so she can let people like you know that she’s a baby killing whore?
How about that?
Or maybe you could drop this petty shit and accept that you will NEVER get abortion outlawed in this country, Bricker. Certainly not in the first three months. This is not information. This is, as another poster said, state mandated slut shaming and it is repulsive. As I wrote in another thread if you are so concerned about what goes on in a woman’s womb then by all means grow your own.
I imagine that for every woman that changes her mind, a dozen more will become infuriated and make sure that laws like this one are not only repealed but never allowed into place again. I most certainly would feel that way.
What “information” does she require, in your estimation? That she is pregnant? We may reasonably assume she knows. Roughly where it is? That too. That it is an “unborn child”? That is not information, that is dogma.
And if this “information” is so useful, why are so many medical professionals solidly against all this? Hear them saying “Hey, this law is pretty sucky, but that mandatory ultrasound is a really good idea, gives her a lot of important information!”. Like what, for instance?
This is all an abstraction to you. An intellectual exercise. A chance to play lawyer on the internet. It has nothing to do with your real life or your very own body parts so you can sit there oh so removed from it.
You stick up for fertilized eggs and dismiss the very real concerns of actual, living, breathing women. How very anti-abortion of you!
Keep at it with these stupid, petty, sad, obnoxious laws. You’ll only energize the pro-choice base further.
So do cows, pigs and chickens. I propose you be forced to look at ultrasounds of living cows, pigs and chickens the next time you shop in the meat aisle.
The predictions you offer rely on data you can’t reasonably expect to obtain. Are you expecting someone to run a study of Wisconsin women, some of whom are made to go through the ultrasound procedure and some who are not (as a control group) and then… what, exactly? If a statistically significant number of women in the test group choose not to get an abortion, how will you know it’s the result of the ultrasound and not just the hassle of the ultrasound?
And that’s not even (or it shouldn’t be) the primary concern, because when a useless condition is added and accepted, it invites more useless conditions. Do you expect the Wisconsin government (if controlled by Republicans, anyway) to take steps to make free ultrasounds more available? Isn’t it just as likely they’d find ways to make it less available? Or maybe they just won’t care either way - the issue prompts enough votes and contributions to get them through the next election and that’s all that matters.
So you’re okay with medically useless ultrasounds but not hospital-level regulations because they go too far? Well, congratulations on not being totally irrational, even as you enable people who are; people who might end up seeing you as part of the abortion-enabling problem because you only partially embrace their irrationality. You’re an American hero.
Just for laughs, let me offer you some potential statistical tests, ones whose data might be more useful. What percentage of Wisconsin women who are now in poverty will end up staying in poverty? What percentage of them will not graduate high school? What will happen to the rate of pregnancy-related complications in Wisconsin?
Actually, that’s true for me, too. Being Canadian, the abortion laws in the United States are purely of academic and philosophical interest to me. I could possibly take them as a warning sign - more laws indicate more Republican governmental control, which correlates with less teaching of science and less chance at reasonable economic/financial/environmental regulation, which can end up hurting my country along with yours.
But I like to think I have good solid reasons to be arguing for personal freedom, while I get the impression Bricker has few (or none) to be arguing otherwise. “Humans are special…” - that’s all I’ve seen lately.
