What are Canada’s laws on abortion if you don’t mind my asking? I presume, like much else in Canada, they are probably a bit saner. Is the issue as contentious there?
And just look what happened! Forty years without abortion laws and Canada is a smoldering ruin! Doesn’t pay to piss off God, 'ey!
That may be the sanest paragraph I’ve ever read on this subject. Bravo Canadians! One of many reasons that, were the place a bit warmer, I would give serious consideration to moving there.
Ya know, I asked about this on the first page and was ignored. Mentioned it again on the last page with the same result. You’ve once again stated categorically that the ultrasound is free without posting any evidence of such. My reading of the bill is that it is required to provide a list of places that offer free ultrasounds but not that the ultrasound itself must be free.
Can you point out anywhere in the bill that mandates that people who offer free ultrasounds must offer it to people seeking a pre-abortion ultrasound?
To be fair, the situation didn’t come about because of some particular groundswell in a Canadian liberal struggle for human rights (a key figure, Henry Morgentaler, is a crusader, but he ain’t exactly beloved). A very unpopular government was in power when the existing law got struck down and couldn’t get a replacement passed out of what may have been largely due to obstruction by their opponents in the Canadian Senate, possibly comparable to what Republicans in the U.S. Senate are doing now.
And once the law was gone, nobody had enough political will and/or political backing to write a new one. At this point, it would be like trying to legislate corsets or horseless carriages.
Sometimes dickishness gets it right.
Our banks are well-regulated and failure-free, too!
I read this as a distinction without a difference. Why, if a facility offers free ultrasounds, wouldn’t the ultrasound be free?
Because there is nothing in the legislation preventing the facility to refuse to do free pre-abortion ultrasounds on morality grounds. There is nothing preventing them from stating that due to limited funding they are only offering free ultrasounds to high risk pregnancies where the ultrasound is medically necessary.
You make it sound as if the legislation itself is providing that the ultrasound will be free but the bill makes no provision for funding such a thing while at the same time increases the number of ultrasounds which will be required. I can easily see the present system finding itself overwhelmed and either limiting the free ultrasounds to medical necessity or stopping the offering altogether.
I think this is the solution to the UHC issue. Just have congress publish a list of facilities that have free medical care. Problem solved.
If this is truly how you see it, I have to question your ability to read and understand the law, and that’s long before even getting to the real world consequences. As written, it is perfectly correct for an abortion provider to supply a list of “facilities offering free ultrasounds” that reads, in total; “NONE”, as could be perfectly true after the clinics now offering it cannot meet demand and with no government subsidies, no new free ultrasound clinics arise.
Net effect: wealthier women or women with good insurance pay for the useless ultrasound, while the poorer women who have the least resources for a pregnancy and child cannot get an ultrasound at all. Charming.
My idea of setting up hassle-free storefront ultrasound clinics (with very generous working definitions of “ultrasound”) sounds better and better.
Say, a wand massager plugged into an old B/W television tuned to static?
Unless someone can cite Wisconsin’s legal definition of “obstetric ultrasound” and it specifically rules OUT the use of B/W televisions, I’d be in perfect compliance.
Again, that’s not how law works.
So I’m using the letter of the law to obtain a desired result. Take me to SCOTUS.
I’m not going to have to. You’ll be cooling your heels in the hoosegow afore you can Snap your fingers and say hoodleberry wanamikkin.
For what, exactly?
No. Because in construing the law, words have their ordinary meaning:
Nothing makes the women of the world happy like reading a discussion between men about exactly how the state gets to invade our private parts in the name of religious beliefs and morals many of us do not share.
It’s satire but I could hear Walker saying it.
So is there a dictionary that describes in precised detail the exact preparation, sequence and detail of an obstetric ultrasound? I assume the ultrasound machine has an operating manual, and the guidelines of the procedure appear in various medical textbooks, but this is a thought experiment:
Since you admit you’re okay (indeed embracing of) mandating an unnecessary medical procedure that, in all honesty, has nothing to do with informing the woman but everything to do with delaying (why is a 24-hour waiting period medically necessary?) and possibly emotionally manipulating her, I’ve decided my goal (in the hypothetical) is to make the ultrasound requirement moot, to the best of my ability.
To that end, what is the absolute rock-bottom bare-minimum “obstetric ultrasound”? Could I (assuming I was a “qualified person” to operate an ultrasound machine - another issue I’d like to explore, since if there’s no licensing issue, I could just buy an obsolete machine and hang out a shingle) perform the procedure… incompetently? Slide a scanner over the woman’s abdomen for a few seconds, look at a blurry monitor image and say “Yeah, there’s the fetus. Here’s your certificate showing you completed the ultrasound procedure. Next!”
Are you going to question my ultrasound technique? On what basis? Unless the woman or her doctor complains that I’ve provided inadequate service, how would you or Wisconsin lawmakers even find out?
As an incidental note, I wonder if you’d care to revisit your post #459, in which you say:
…because that is not what the law provides, and you score no points by saying I’m ignorant of the law while immediately displaying ignorance of it, yourself.