It can easily be both - an attempt to harass and delay that works (as a pro-lifer would define the term) some of the time.
Heck, I’ve no problem with the idea (let alone “terrified”) that some women are torn or ambivalent on whether or not to abort. If pro-lifers want to offer free “counseling” services, free pre-natal care, financial support, run pro-life PSAs and even stage legal protests in the hope of changing some minds, more power to them. It’s when pandering legislators throw in force of law that I start to object.
What “information”? That she is pregnant? She knows that, its why she is there. That the baby is a human-type fetus? Certainly some of them know that. I’m willing to go way out on the limb here and say they all do. Risky conjecture, perhaps, but I’m a wild man. “Some” is much safer, can’t hardly go wrong with “some”.
The information you wish them to be apprised of, does it consist of your own personal theological views? Is this why you offer benign neglect to the question of whether or not “crisis centers” are likely to be significant beneficiaries of this “free ultrasound” requirement? That the most likely reason women, of any percentage, might change their mind is because they are subjected to state-approved propaganda and lies?
I haven’t seen any explanation of how an involuntary transvaginal ultrasound is not sexual assault via rape with a foreign object. I can’t see how a law requiring sexual assault could be considered constitutional.
It is possible that a more conventional ultrasound is still rape with a foreign object when it is forced without consent. Isn’t sound/energy waves directed into the inside of someone’s uterus against their will still ‘penetration with a foreign object’?
And in either case, how does this law not violate the 4th Amendment? This law seems to demand an unlawful search of the inside of a woman’s uterus. There is no probable cause because there is no crime or suspected crime taking place, so how could a warrant for such a search ever be granted?
Also along 4th Amendment lines, how is the waiting period not an unlawful seizure? A woman wants an abortion today, but this law forces her to wait, effectively seizing her on her way to lawful behavior.
I can’t see how this law is going to stand the test of time.
As strongly as I’m opposed to this law, I don’t think a forced, medically unnecessary abdominal ultrasound can or should be considered rape. That’s insensitive to real rape victims, and we don’t need to call it that to make it sound bad. It’s bad enough on its own.
If there is a successful legal challenge, that’s where it will be, more or less.
We’ll see. Casey modified Roe. Gonzales v. Carhart resulted in good news for me. Right to privacy (the right that is written not in ink, but in “penumbras” and “emanations”) in the Constitution. Perhaps another penumbra will be found that strengthens fetal rights to not be slaughtered. That’s the thing about grounding your legal argument in a penumbra or an emanation: someone else can always find another penumbra.
We know how to modify the written text. But penumbras say what the philosopher-kings want them to say.
I’m cautiously optimistic that the penumbras will work out well for ultrasound.
The same reason the TSA searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Not that the ultrasound procedure and the TSA searches are both looking for the same thing. The reason that the Fourth Amendment isn’t implicated is the same reason the TSA’s searches aren’t Fourth Amendment problems.
But, hey, if you guys feel you’ve stumbled upon an undiscovered sure-fire legal winner, please, don’t let me stop you. In fact, the more that I think about it, the more I think I might be in error: that Fourth Amendment argument sounds devastating! Run with it! It’s a clear winner.
I’m not sure it’ll BE precisely the same court by the time this issue gets to it, but… okay. Two bucks in Canadian or American currency, whichever is higher at the time of the decision.
I propose a side bet of one buck that the court will break along party lines. The exact conditions of each bet subject to negotiation, since I’m sure we have time to hammer out the details.
Well, something you have to do as a precondition for X is not “involuntary” unless doing without X is actually going to kill you, is it?
Well, not in the sense of a “search” for incriminating evidence. Only for evidence that will never be presented in court and is, not incriminating, but guilt-inducing on an emotional level. Certainly not something the FFs were concerned to prevent (because it was not something they could imagine).
But, America got punked by a group who smuggled box cutters onto planes, which they leveraged into 9/11, arguably the most spectacular terrorist attack in history.
The abortion-seeker isn’t even suspected of potentially breaking a law, let alone posing such a precedented threat.
Be specific. A woman has to allow a doctor to insert a wand up her vagina to photograph the inside of her uterus, not because she desires it, and against her doctor’s advice, but because some blowhards in the legislature think it will advance their religious agenda, and that’s acceptable because it won’t kill her?
Maybe you’re kidding. ITSM like the kind of penetration that amounts to sexual assault. And how can that be legal?
Right. There is no suspicion of incriminating evidence, nothing to be seized (other than the person’s time, without probable cause), and no prospect of the evidence appearing before a court. So how could such an invasive violation of the security of a person’s person a la the 4th Amendment ever be approved via the granting of a search warrant? How could such a search be permitted without a warrant?
Some women’s uteruses (I refuse to use Latin plurals) ARE explosive devices, which is why some women do a happy dance about six weeks after a hysterectomy. Haven’t you read the hysterectomy threads?