Well, he said the law “provides for” free ultrasounds. I’m still awaiting a clarification on this.
It just means if there is a free ultrasound 700 miles away, that’s where women have to go to comply with the law. It’s the law, passed by a legislature, so it must be good.
I’ll get back to our other question later if I can, but I want to point out that the correct answer to this question is, “It doesn’t matter.”
The law allows for abortion on demand. People do not have to win a debate with you or someone else before they may proceed.
Further, clearly this is religiously motivated. We have a fundamental principle of not enshrining any religion in the law. This obvious overreach won’t stick. Plus it is going to give your religion a bad name along with driving people away from your party. It does distract the public away from the need to take anti-trust action against the big banks, I’ll give you that much.
I’d like to “insert” her the Doonesbury “shaming wand” comic strip series:
A shame he included Glenn McCoy, a satirist in the same way that Limbaugh is an analyst. The Godzilla of douchebag.
HA! “If he (the fetus) has decide to be the next Rick Perry, I’ve made my decision.” 
Not true. These troglodytes ran on “jobs, jobs, jobs,” which voters were all for! This obsession with anti-abortion, with which the majority of Americans disagree, began after the election. And I think you’ll see the backlash in the next election which will prove this point.
And where are all those jobs, jobs, jobs anyway? After the election, Wisconsin sucked at job creation, probably because all those republicans had their heads up all those uteri instead of doing the job for which they were elected.
This really isn’t true. While I do agree that this movement is religiously motivated for the most part I don’t believe it is true that your fundamental principles prevent you from enshrining religion into the law. All you need to do is to show a secular purpose being served and you’re off to the races (see various blue laws across the United States).
The secular purpose is a belief that a mother has a duty to provide for their child to the best of their ability from conception onward. This is no more religious than the duty to provide for a child from the point of birth onward. (I happen to disagree with this assessment and believe that there are individual rights that override anyone’s life, one being the right to dictate how your organs are used).
True. But in Wisconsin, they do have to get an ultrasound, which is the subject of this thread. And by the same line of reasoning, I don’t have to win a debate with anyone for that to be so.
Which religion? I have already posted examples of pro-life rabbis, pro-life imams, pro-life Buddhists, and even pro-life atheists.
And by “won’t stick,” what do you mean, specifically?
So if the Republicans remain in control following the next election, you’ll concede error on this claim?
Sure, I don’t have a problem with admitting a mistake when proved wrong. And I expect you will do the same if I am proved right.
So, Bricker, when you said the law provides for free ultrasounds, what exactly did you think that meant?
I’m sure that he’ll concede error on his claim because it surely does not.
Absolutely.
Asked and answered: what the law literally says is that women will be provided with a list of facilities that provide free ultrasounds. I regard this is a distinction without a difference, since the effect of that will be to make free ultrasounds available to an abortion-seeking woman.
But I will happily concede error on the precise phrasing of the law: it does not “provide free ultrasounds.” It mandates that a list of free ultrasound providers be made available, which will have the effect of making free ultrasounds available.
Thanks for reiterating once again what the law does provide for, because it surely does not provide for free ultrasounds, which is the distinction and the difference. It provides for a list, NOT for a free ultrasound. If there are no facilities that provide free ultrasounds, which is entirely conceivable (no pun intended), then the list will be blank, or if the listed providers are booked solid for the next 3 months, the list is useless, and no free ultrasounds will be available to an abortion-seeking woman, in effect or otherwise. The provision of said “list” would follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. “Precise phrasing” be damned, the law does not “provide for” free ultrasounds.
Concede away - you’re wrong here and you know it.
The LAW is doing no such thing. It is not in ANY “effect” making free ultrasounds available, it just mandates a listing of places that ARE making free ultrasounds available.
Besides, the “error” is not on the phrasing of the law, but in what you said, twice, about what the law meant. Nice attempt to dodge responsibility, though. It’s like saying “I recognize errors were made, but my point stands.” And we don’t rely on you to report what the law literally says. We can read, and we brought the issue of who pays for the mandated ultrasounds to YOUR attention, at which stage you seemed to think the government was providing free ultrasounds.
I’m typing on my phone and using capitals is easier than using italics.
Then you are an idiot or a liar.
And I see Lamia has cut to the chase on my behalf.
Does not compute. Suppose a law requires that a list of soup kitchens be made available. That law does not mandate that soup kitchens exist, it just mandates that a list of existing soup kitchens be made available.
Why is this different? How does the law ensure that any free providers of ultrasounds exist?