I speculated on the possibility back in post #471. Still, I daresay it comes down to where a particular county’s distractg attorney’s sympathies lie. If he or she wants to apply this law (bad though it is), I guess I could be sanctioned or delicensed or whatever. If he or she is more sympathetic to pregnant women, I might get no penalty at all. I’d expect little else from a situation where lawyers get more medical discretion than doctors, or gadfly ultrasound operators such as I would be.
Of course, were I cynical, I’d express doubts that Wisconsin Republicans care in the least what goes on during an ultrasound. Merely passing the law gives them sufficient appearance of doing something about the issue, playing on the hatreds, fears and irrationality of (hopefully) a majority of their constituents come election time. To test those doubts, I’d do my slapdash - excuse me, efficient - ultrasound procedure and dare them to prosecute and go on record spelling out how they feel themselves more qualified to practice medicine then medical practitioners.
Well, the ACORN example indicates that people will believe what they want to believe. I could only (hypothetically) do my best.
Aparently Virginia provides such a list - and all the free ultrasound locations are “crisis centers” where they will do their best to talk you out of your (legal) decision to abort. that is, if they give you the documentation that you need to go ahead and pursue the evil choice you have made - allegedly, some have refused.
ETA Here is the list itself, at least from last year. it may have been updated. Two are not even clinics (see supervision for center field).
Why should being a farm animal be a death sentence? Chickens, cows and pigs all have quite a few human characteristics. I daresay some pigs are even smarter than a few Republican legislators. Should a package of bacon carry a picture of Wilbur the pig on it? Should you be forced to listen to vegans before you eat a cheeseburger? Should PETA be allowed to put up billboards in your local KFC?
Because animals are not human beings and the law correctly regards human’s right to life as paramount, and animals’ right to life as generally non-existent.
Agreed on the spina bifida point, but in the case of fetuses with severe defects, choosing to abort might be the wiser and more compassionate thing to do.)
Example: short rib polydactyly fetuses. Even if born alive, many of them suffer death by suffocation. What is the point of that?
Yet they have faces, brains and hearts. You want women to surrender control over their uteruses to you because you think that a fertilized egg is a living, breathing thing. Many farm animals are far more sentient than a six week old fertilized egg. Why do you not the feel the same way about a cow or a chicken?
Or for that matter about the thousands of stray animals we kill each year? My cats are capable of a range of emotions and even intelligence. They know I feed them and my husband does not so they generally ignore him and follow me around. They know enough to stay in the basement when it is hot. The long hair is even quite aware of exactly when the toddler is in the house and when she is not and plans accordingly.
One could hardly say the same about fetuses with certain birth defects such as anencephaly.
Because I believe that humans, as the species that makes the laws, are entitled to define themselves as a special case under the law. It’s a perk of being the unquestioned top of the food chain.
Funny how others of us don’t agree. And funniest is how the others that don’t agree are the ones who managed to elect the legislators and pass the law, leaving those of you that do see a problem in a decidedly disadvantageous position vis-a-vis the law.
Ah, the Bricker “neener-neener” post! Not as wildly popular as his perennial favorite, “legal! and constitutional!”, but still, definitely in his Greatest Hits…
I’m trying to think of a law, even one I like, that didn’t affect me but I was okay with its unsound application affecting others because my sense of “fuck THOSE people” was over-riding my senses of ethics and reason, but none come to mind.
ETA: On reflection, I guess I’m okay with laws against polluting the Canadian Arctic, even though I’m not likely to ever visit there.
Bricker wants what he’s never going to get: abortion made illegal in nearly all circumstances. He admits this and knows this but still approves of silly little games like this law. It would be just laughable were it not for the fact that actual women are affected and inconvenienced by those who share his extremist beliefs.