They sure as hell aren’t in Israel as I proved to Bricker. I would like an apology from him but as he is neither a gentleman nor a scholar, I imagine one will not be in the offing. In Bricker’s little world women contemplating an abortion should have to go to a committee and justify their actions to him. He and his cronies will then decide if the potential she-woman babykiller is worthy of having control over her own body parts.
Is there any indication Wisconsin legislators did any research into how many abortions took place in the state and how many ultrasound machines there were in the state, to see if the latter could possibly meet the demand of the former, because if they didn’t I daresay we’re back at unsound application.
And I hope it wasn’t the testosterone that caused that kind of douchiness.
While I have my concerns about these supposed free ultrasound facilities, that’s not what makes you an idiot or a liar. You’re an idiot or a liar because you have repeatedly made obviously false claims about what this law says and does.
This is pretty much the pattern wherever this bullshit is being tried, isn’t it? Correct if wrong, but don’t they all slip in some ultrasound requirements and pretend with a straight face that its all about protecting the woman’s health, like those extra large janitorial closets for…health stuff.
I’m seeing a pattern here. Demand ultrasounds, then offer “clinics” where free ultrasounds can be obtained, and then they get counseling on the near certainty of breast cancer as a result of unborn child murder.
Kinda speaks to their attitude, they think women aren’t serious, they think that just a little persuasion will change their minds from this frivolous abortion. As if they didn’t give it any more thought than changing the brand of shampoo they use.
I don’t necessarily think its because most of them suffer from testosterone poisoning. But I know plenty of women who do think that, and I’m damned if they don’t have a point.
I haven’t read the whole thread, can somebody update me on whether the thread title is correct? The article says:
So a naive reading would be that the thread title is accurate: in early pregnancy, a less invasive ultrasound would likely not be able to satisfy this requirement, thus mandating an invasive method.
Either way the law is despicable, but I hope someone will reassure me that it is only regular despicable and not mind-breakingly monstrous.
The law explicitly says that the woman may choose which type of transducer is used.
::yawn::
Any errors I have made were unintentional and I have corrected them.
The chain of Bryan’s Quick-and-Easy Ultrasounds will be sure to stock the best transducers the world’s garage sales can offer.
You’ve got a few as-yet uncorrected errors to go, but you’re tired - they can wait.
I was wrong about the precise text of the law providing for free ultrasounds. i remain convinced that the net effect of the law’s implementation will be that women are getting free ultrasounds.
I never said the majority of people were anti-abortion based on who got elected. What I said and will repeat is: in a representative democracy, the will of the people is expressed by the elected legislators. That’s not the same thing as claiming the majority of people approve of each and ever act of legislature. Could I avoid punishment at my trial for possession of marijuana if I showed the judge a poll with majority disapproval of marijuana laws?
I don’t really know what specific claim I made about Israel’s abortion law that was wrong. Cite?
No, no – I have never had a problem admitting error. Let’s go. what else?
Go ahead and daresay. It’s good exercise.
But your “daresay” is hardly actual evidence, is it?
Apparently you feel I should apologize for my approval of Israel’s termination committee?
Um…nope.
My genuine reaction was one of laughter, so I won’t be in any particular rush.
I’m right here, kiddo. Any time.
Yes, but the article also says:
In very early pregnancy, if the less invasive method is unable to show anything, is this requirement still satisfied? Or is it in effect mandating a transvaginal ultrasound, because even though women could choose the other option, they would often not get a sufficient picture to satisfy the law?
Okay, grasshopper, do you see your error in post 549?
In statutory construction, generalia specialibus non derogant – the general does not derogate the specific. When a law has a specific command, like the explicit mandate that women can choose which transducer – it is given more force and effect than the inferential general principle that you mention.
No court has addressed the issue, since the law is brand new, but that’s the principle in play.
Here’s post 549:
There’s a grammatical error: it should be:
Because animals are not human beings and the law correctly regards humans’ right to life as paramount, and animals’ right to life as generally non-existent.
Apart from that, no, I see no substantive factual error. But I’m happy to learn.