Bricker, as someone who was wondering this same question, would you be kind enough to answer?
If there’s any consistency, Bricker won’t have a problem with it, once a legislature approves it and a governor signs it.
In some ways they are different. For example, they are spelled differently.
In some ways they are the same. For example, both corporations and natural persons have First Amendment rights.
Perhaps you might focus your argument. Are you being sarcastic? It’s hard to penetrate the keen liberal wit. Undoubtedly a regular reader of Mother Jones would know at once precisely what argument you wanted to make. Sadly, I am not.
I didn’t offer a bet. But I’m willing to.
I would acknowledge that, if 30% of prospective mothers had their minds changed, that the tactic was not simply intended to obstruct or delay.
I might feel it was an unwise law.
I would not claim it was unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate.
Sadly, you are not a lot of things. My specific comment stems from you ignoring everything Max wrote but for one word (“smoking”) in order to take a tangent because, I gather, you’re unable or unwilling to address his points.
You “might” feel? Well, I guess that clarifies how confident you are.
I know you didn’t offer a bet. That was my point. You said:
but $2 is $2 more than you’ve offered to bet on any of your own predictions here. You’re not even making a bet now that you’ve been called out on it, you’re trying to get me to make a bet on your claim…a claim I’ve already dismissed as irrelevant. Remember?
But instead of presenting any sort of argument in favor of your proposed metric, you’d rather try to bribe me. Well, if I didn’t think it was a good idea before then a dishonest stranger on the Internet suggesting that there might be some unspecified amount of money in it for me certainly isn’t going to change my mind. I said no to that Nigerian prince, and he seemed a lot more trustworthy than you. If you would like to demonstrate your confidence in your claim then you are welcome to find some way of doing so that does not involve me.
I didn’t offer a bet for this proposition because I sensed, somehow, that I would find no takers.
In almost the same breath, you inveigh against my failure to offer a bet and at the same time haughtily reject any such proposition.
So let me be clear: I believe that at least 30% of abortion-minded women will change their minds upon seeing an ultrasound and hearing the associated description. I am willing to wager in support of this belief, an act which indicates at least some measure of honest belief (as opposed to feigning a belief for partisan or ideological reasons) in the truth of my claim.
You decline any wager.
Is that because you think i may be right?
Or is it because, even if I am right, you still wish to upend the legislation?
Or some other reason?
It does. I have no idea what factual predicates might have led to the creation of such a law. I’m not all that confident I’d find it unwise. I think I would, but who knows?
By that standard, my two bucks is the pinnacle of confidence.
Over lunch, I mused on the subject of betting. How SCOTUS eventually rules (or chooses not to) is a fairly graspable, unambiguous concept, but the proposed 30% test needs some clarification. Bricker expresses belief that this percentage of women who view the ultrasound and hear the description will not abort. What about women who DON’T view the ultrasound? What about women who go out of state and pay out of pocket to avoid Wisconsin’s rules? Do these women not count for the purposes of this wager?
What about measuring the rate of elective abortions one year after the law goes into effect? Can we assume if it stays the same or drops by less than 20% that Bricker was wrong without further analysis? For two bucks, I’d take that bet.
An additional caveat occurs - the possibility that the ultrasound requirement leads some women who would abort (even after viewing the ultrasound) unable to do so because delays take the choice out of their hands. One of Bricker’s premises is that the law poses no such burden, but that strikes me as wishful, at best.
So if the rate drops, do you concede, or raise this spectre as a defense?
Hmm. Interesting point, and I agree that it’s in some ways comparable. However, think about the life of a smoker the day before that law went into effect vs. the following day. One day they go to the store, pay some money, and buy some cigarettes. The next day they go to the store, pay some money, and buy some cigarettes. There is additional information there that they can optionally pay attention to, which might even impinge itself upon their consciousness, but it’s not actually putting hurdles between them and the action they are legally allowed to choose to do.
But that’s weirdly results-oriented. That is, I’m sure there are some people (including you) who can say with absolute and total truthfulness that you believe that some number of prospective mothers will change their minds upon seeing the ultrasound. If it turns out you’re wrong, you still honestly believed it, and if it turns out you’re right, you still honestly believed it. You can’t gain information about someone’s motives purely based on whether or not their predictions come true, unless you believe that they are also omniscient experts on the topic. (However, this is clearly a tangent to a tangent…)
You didn’t address my earlier points about women who don’t look and women who go out of state. Do you want to discuss this seriously or not? If so, we have to establish exactly what is being tested and how it will be tested.
No. But you can gain information about their sincerity if you see they are willing to risk something material on their being right.
Sure, they could be wrong, and have honestly believed it. But if they honestly believe it, they shouldn’t be averse to accepting some kind of penalty for being wrong, because fo cousre they don’t believe they’re wrong!
In my view, the people here know they’re wrong, and want to get the mileage out of denying what they know to be likely without paying any penalty for the error.
Sounds like a convenient excuse - what kind of risks and penalties did you have in mind for people to demonstrate their sincerity?