Doctors are already obligated by other constraints, things like the hippocratic oath and a need to avoid malpractice.
In Bricker world, yeah all you need is a law to compel doctors to perform unnecessary procedures and everything is peachy. But you seem blind to what actually determines the necessity of a procedure- the doctor’s judgement and the patient’s wishes. This law violates both of those considerations. We can’t have legislatures imposing a Demon Theory of Disease model on professional physicians.
The story with the list is that the legislature does not specifically put the burden on Medicare or state tax dollars to pay for these ultrasounds- that’d trigger medical fraud charges immediately. Meanwhile, religious groups who can’t wait to start propagandizing young women are preparing to turn themselves into ‘free ultrasound providers’ to get on the list. But of course the state can’t mandate religious indoctrination any more than it can mandate unnecessary medical procedures. The law will be challenged and thrown out.
They’ll have to attempt to defend an indefensible law though.
Good one. I know all sorts of people too, but if you had to take a guess, which religious groups would you say are behind this?
I actually started to write a long post explaining the distinction to him, but then I thought “There’s no way a person of normal intelligence really doesn’t understand this already.” I don’t think there’s much point in multiple people trying to explain a pretty obvious distinction if he’s either unwilling or unable to understand it.
It is perhaps more interesting to think about why Bricker keeps claiming that the law effectively provides free ultrasounds when it doesn’t. If he’s a liar, what is he hoping to gain from this lie? Why does he keep trying to convince us that this law does something it really doesn’t do? It seems to me that the most likely explanation is that Bricker actually does understand on some level that this law places an unreasonable burden on women seeking abortions, so in order to justify his support of it he must try to convince us – or himself – that the required ultrasound won’t really be that much of a hassle. (He’s already ignored posts about how stressful and uncomfortable the ultrasound experience can be.)
Of course, I may be reading too much into his posts. Maybe he really is that stupid.
And I can find pro-choice Catholic priests and nuns. It doesn’t negate the fact that the Catholic church’s official stance on this issue is one of anti-abortion extremism. Or that much of the lobbying on this issue comes from Evangelicals and Catholics in the name of their religion.
Most Jews and most rabbis are pro-choice. Jewish tradition has always (and hopefully always will) been intelligent enough to recognize that women are more important than any fetus. IVF is not only legal in Israel, it is also heavily subsidized.
No. Ultrasounds ARE free at certain facilities in Wisconsin. The list is intended to assist mothers seeking to abort their unborn children with finding those facilities.
It’s funny that you bring up IVF…as though we can leanr something about Israel’s view of abortion by inference to IVF.
Why not bring up Israel’s actual laws concerning abortion? According to Wikipedia, abortion in Israel is only legal if a “termination committee” approves it, and they will only in the following circumstances:
That seems like a great scheme to me.
Do you also approve?
Or would you like to revisit your great reverence for Israeli Jewish views on abortion?
Ok, so you agree that this law does nothing to make free ultrasounds available, unless you define “available” to mean “make a list of providers that already do it”.
So “provides for” is synonymous with “intended to assist with finding”, or at least the two are so close in meaning that their distinction is without a difference?
Five seconds of googling brings up the following links:
Many abortions are performed privately and doing so is not a crime:
Most Jews do not share your extremist views on this subject. Are you comfortable with these norms? Would you like legal abortions funded by the state? Do you want doctors prosecuted for doing abortions? Women prosecuted?
Oh, is that what the law is intended to do now? Funny, someone kept saying the law provided free ultrasounds.
I hope those free ultrasound facilities in Wisconsin are prepared to keep up with a sudden increase in demand for their services, because this law sure isn’t doing anything to help them.
So basically abortions in Israel are pretty much not only legal in just about all circumstances but even state funded as long as you go through their committee. You can also get one privately at greater cost without going through the whole rigmarole and without fear of prosecution for you or the doctor. State funded abortions. One wonders how many of those Evangelical right wing Israel Must Exist to Provoke the End Times pro-Zionists nuts know about this.
I would obviously get rid of the committee but otherwise that sounds quite sane to me. Do you agree, Bricker? If you have further questions about the law, I can easily ask my Israeli friends directly for you. They include a doctor, a law professor at UCLA-Hastings and a medical librarian.
No, thank you. The israel question was just a hijack of the main question, which was your claim that my abortion position was a result of my religion, and my rebuttal pointing out that people of many different faiths, and even secular groups, also oppose abortion.
It was extremely amusing on some level to see you smugly and arrogantly jump the gun without bothering to do any real research on the subject. Especially after basically accusing me of being a babbling know-nothing moron barely worthy of rebuttal.
I am simply pointing that much of the anti-abortion lobbying that is done here is done not only in the name of religion but done in the name of extremist religious viewpoints not shared by the vast majority of the American public at that. You are being incredibly disingenuous when you attempt to deny this. I am also sick and tired of hearing the implication that the only possible religious or moral point of view on this issue is that of the anti-abortionists.
A Jew’s pro-choice beliefs are just as moral as your Catholic beliefs to the contrary.
