Heh, I’m just picturing a state that requires attendance at a traffic school before granting a driver’s license, and all the traffic schools just show their students propaganda about how mass transit is morally superior.
I’d like a link to that. A cite for sore eyes, as it were.
Please repeat, and I’ll answer. Or provide post numbers?
Not remotely. You’re speculating that the list will be blank, or all providers will be booked. Show me that’s true, and I’ll abandon my support for the bill.
No. You’re merely speculating that this list will be some useless trick and won’t meaningfully direct women to free ultrasounds.
If you believe that, prove it.
Prove it by going to Wikipedia for five seconds and then posting the results. Smugly announce you therefore know everything there is to know on that subject. Judging by his thoughts on Israeli abortion laws, that ought to be evidence enough for Bricker.
I posted it earlier - but here is an article about NARAL’s investigation of said list.
here is the list itself (from last year, I believe - there are only 14 on this list, so the list NARAL had of 18 is newer) - I have not personally called any of these places to see if they are “crisis centers” - but NARAL says they have, and they are.
http://rhrealitycheck.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/06-29-12_Free_Ultrasound_Listing.pdf
ETA: NARAL Report
http://www.naralva.org/assets/bin/Mandatory%20Ultrasounds%20and%20Crisis%20Pregnancy%20Centers.pdf
The bill provides nothing towards making free ultrasounds available, unless “make available” means “make a list of providers who already do it”. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
.
Virginia is not Wisconsin. Wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see a direct parallel, in fact, be surprised to see otherwise. Still, to nitpick: not Wisconsin.
Say, Bricker, isn’t Virginia your neck of the woods? Did you know about this?
Yes, and that’s why I said:
(Emphasis added)
561, 572, 593. They’re all on the same basic question regarding an earlier statement (two statements, actually) of yours. A repetition of “asked and answered” or “distinction without a difference” will not be satisfactory.
No suggestion of dishonesty implied. Personally, I have little doubt that this is the intended effect, to funnel vulnerable women into the helpful clutches of “crisis centers”. But to be strictly fair, I can’t prove it.
Sorry if I seemed snippy in response. I didn’t mean to come across that way. I agree with you, I think that “crisis centers” will be the bulk - if not the entirety- of any list Wisconsin provides. It makes sense to me. The organizations who do choose to offer free ultrasounds and agree to be included on the list (Virginia officials apparently called around, asked price and then asked if the free ones wanted to be included) will want to be on the list in order to advance an agenda. Most medical clinics either don’t do ultrasounds for free, or they will not want to be included - there is no profit in it for them. So the participants are likely to be mostly or all crisis centers, in my opinion. But I can’t prove it either.
I know we’ve all moved on to the “free ultrasounds only at anti-abortion crisis centers” and “where’s the proof, Bricker? The proof!” but I think this post bears repeating:
Bricker claims since these laws were passed by a legislature duly elected by the citizenry, ipso facto, a majority of the citizenry is obviously in favor of such laws. It’s like a logic puzzle: A majority of citizens voted for these legislators; these legislators were in favor of and passed this law; therefore, ta da, a majority of citizens want laws like these.
I say it’s not so simple. As mentioned by legalsnugs, the Republicans voted in during the last election were running on topics such as “Jobs,” or “Obama is the evil Muslim socialist,” or in the case of Wisconsin, “Support the Walker regime and not those communist union thugs.” I am willing to bet abortion was a very, very minor part of those campaigns, if it came up at all. And to infer by extension that a vote for GOP Rep. Blowhard was going to be a vote for laws that close clinics, force unwanted and unnecessary ultrasounds, and restrict access to abortions to ridiculous lengths … I don’t think many Wisconsin voters actually had that on their minds.
Not to mention, isn’t it funny that these practically carbon-copy measures are hitting the state capitols in all these places at the same time? Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina … all with the intent of squeezing the legal clinics in each state with reasonable-sounding but nefarious restrictions on hospital access and hallway widths, and imposing more and more unnecessary requirements on women seeking abortions. I don’t recall such topics being the focus of many (if ANY) campaigns during the 2012 election. It’s almost as if this is being orchestrated by some outside force, some shadowy group pulling the strings of GOP-dominated legislatures, exactly midway between election cycles (we didn’t run on this last time, and we hope you forget by next time) … might one say, ALEC? How many citizens voted for ALEC to represent them in the legislature, Bricker?
So, yeah, the law was passed by duly elected legislators in a legal fashion. I guess that makes it law. But it doesn’t follow that the majority of Wisconsin voters are in favor of such restrictive measures. And even if a GOP majority is reelected in 2014, it still doesn’t mean that. Elections are not and never have been single-issue affairs. People vote for Republicans or Democrats based on a range of factors, so, anti-abortion GOPers can and do get reelected even if a majority of voters in their district don’t agree with them on abortion, or gas tax levies, or social service funding. It’s not a one-to-one ratio, so you can’t say, “Well, it passed, so the majority of Wisconsinites must be okay with it! Nyuk nyuk, neener neener!”
Not sure they would have had to even mention it, the anti-choice crowd knows who to vote for. Unless some Democrat candidate offered himself or herself as more anti-choice than the Republican candidate.
That’s not what you said, so are you retracting your statement, “…women will be provided with a list of facilities that provide free ultrasounds…since the effect of that will be to make free ultrasounds available to an abortion-seeking woman.”? (italics mine)
The antecedent of “effect of that” is “list.” The list does not make ultrasounds free, it just notifies those who need to know where they can be obtained, if available. If there are no free ones available, the list will be blank.
Sure, I’ll retract it.
I will substitute the following:
There will be a list. That list will contain the locations of facilities which provide free ultrasounds.
In my view, it’s possible to imagine an inference from those facts which results in free ultrasounds for women.
Correct.
But that’s the system. We don’t place each piece of prospective legislation before the citizenry at large. In an representative democracy, the will of the people is expressed through its elected leaders.
That’s not the same as saying that the majority of people agree with each and every act done by the legislators. But our system of creating laws makes that irrelevant. If I’m arrested for insider trading, I cannot defend myself by saying that polls show a majority of Americans don’t think insider trading should be illegal.
As it happens, not all religious people are anti-abortion zealots. Look at Texas: Restrictive Abortion Bills In Texas Under Attack…by Texas Preachers!
This is a good thing.
LOL. And you accuse *me *of speculating? What’s the difference from your imagining an inference that results in free ultrasounds and my imagining it may not?
Oh, right - It’s Okay When A Republican Does It.
You’re wrong about the law “providing for” ultrasounds. You’re wrong about the majority being anti-abortion based on who got elected. And you’re wrong about Israel’s abortion laws. But you just can’t admit errors, can you? Believe what you want, dude, but if you’re going to post an opinion here, at least man up when it’s been shown (repeatedly) that you’ve based your opinion on incorrect information.