I think your last sentence probably overstates it, but I agree.
All I’m pointing out is that the particular argument you suggested–that legally only the interests of the doctor and mother count at the outset–is not correct. The state has an interest from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the “life of th fetus that may become a child.” If the intended point was about the meaning of “person” versus “life of the fetus that may become a child”–then I don’t think it is a meaningful point, since obviously Bricker’s point is that the state may consider the life of the fetus in its calculus.
I just did a Google Image search on “early ultrasound”, and I have to say these pictures look like anonymous blobs to me. Maybe it’s obvious to a medical professional that they’re fetuses, but just the other day my doctor was showing me images of a (benign) cyst that I have, and these ultrasound images don’t look any more like human beings to me than the MRI of my cyst did.
Also, the bill allows exceptions in cases of rape or incest. So- memo to women who want abortions in Wisconsin: say it’s because of rape or incest! I wonder if abortion clinic escorts could do this- talk to women on their way inside, and tell them that if they say it’s because of rape or incest, they can skip these unnecessary requirements?
This law, as is my understanding, will require that some mothers to make a trip to another medical facility, perhaps not close by, for a procedure that is not medically necessary in order to obtain an abortion, which is a perfectly legal procedure. If the law required the doctor to show her existing pictures of what a fetus looked like at “x” weeks, that would not be an undue burden. I would not support such a law, but I think it would easily pass the undue burden test of Casey. The doctor would have such pictures readily available, and would take only a few minutes for the woman to look at. Stupid, but constitutional.
in my view, suggesting those tactics proves that you know this procedure will convince some women to abandon their plans to abort. And this terrifies you.
You could just think this makes having an abortion even more traumatic and emotionally fraught than it otherwise would be, and that inflicting such emotional distress on women because you disagree with their decision to have an abortion is callous and wrong.
You are incorrect. Mandating unnecessary medical procedures terrifies me. The state telling a woman that she can’t undergo this medical procedure unless she does X, which may require expenses like a long drive or other difficulties, terrifies me. Women not having control over their own bodies terrifies me- the thought that individuals don’t have the right to expel things from their bodies that they don’t want inside terrifies me.
You’re way, way off on what goes on in my mind. I have no problem with women changing their minds- I have a problem with individual rights being violated. I’m not sure why you can’t just take at face value my reasons for my beliefs, but it’s awfully obnoxious. I have no problem believing that you’re telling the truth about why you believe the way you do.
No the fucking ectopic pregnancy that could have easily killed me terrified me. The specter of old men dictating my reproductive decisions and the reproductive decisions of my beloved daughters terrifies me. The idea of a group of celibate Catholic men making laws about women’s body parts while viewing said women with vast contempt as sluts and potential murderers terrifies me. The notion of Republican men standing up for fetuses but not giving a fucking damn about actual living, breathing women terrifies me. The notion of facing pre-eclampsia and having some smug man tell me and my doctor what to do about it terrifies me.
An abortion is a tragedy. But it’s a necessary tragedy unless we want back alleys and dead women.
The possibility of an independent woman making up her mind about a pregnancy only terrifies those who utterly despise such women. Like this guy.
If you really wanted to reduce abortions you wouldn’t bother with such invasive and petty laws. Instead you’d work for more effective birth control, greater access to safety nets to help raise children, better schools and a whole host of other things that really would help women feel better about risking their lives with a pregnancy.
But you and your fellow anti-abortionists don’t so it is essentially impossible to take you seriously on this subject.
I have two girls I love very, very, very much. They’re wonderful. Eldest brought home a report card full of A’s and dreams of being a vet. The little one loves nothing more than to say hi to the entire world.
I want them to have children with men who respect and love them when the time is right for them. Not because the birth control failed or some sociopath forced them against a wall and shoved a penis in their vagina while they begged him to stop as happened to their grandmother. Not because they forgot to take the pill or the condom broke. Joyfully at the right time when they are ready to take care of a baby. I want them to be as happy as I was the day I realized I had a viable pregnancy and would get to be their loving mommy with a wonderful man.
Screw anyone else who has a different vision for my darling daughters.
That is, in practice, what happens in the UK, where abortion is only technically legal if the health of the mother or (potential) child is at risk. It is routinely accepted that expecting a woman to continue with a pregnancy she does not want is a risk to her mental health.
If I want to have a tooth extracted, the law doesn’t require that I consult the tooth fairy and consider what the loss of dental material will do to the Church of White Teeth.
If I contemplate an appendectomy, I don’t have to undergo an arthroscopic examination to show me what my inflamed appendix looks like first.
If I want to have laser surgery on my eye, I don’t have to consider the loss of income to the optometrist when I no longer need glasses.
If I have a vasectomy, the law doesn’t require I calculate, to the nearest million, the billions of sperm that will be futilely banging their heads against a brick wall thereafter. Nor do I have to watch a video of dead sperm.
But if a woman wants an abortion, she should be made to see how shameful some other people feel this choice is by the most humiliating way possible.
I’m not disputing that, but the mental health issue is the one that’s been used in the 46 years since the law was passed, probably because it’s much more of a judgement by the doctor, and couldn’t so easily be challenged should the situation occur.
In practice, abortion is available on demand here.
As patronizing as that is, you and I both know that isn’t the real reason.
The real reason is that women seeking abortion are working against the clock, and there is a limited time period between “oh shit I’m pregnant” (or “Oh shit, something happened to make continuing this pregnancy a bad idea”) and the point where abortion is illegal in most areas. Furthermore, every passing week makes abortion more invasive, more expensive, and harder to arrange. The goal of this legislation is not to honestly change women’s minds, but to wind down a clock so that she reaches the point that she no longer has a choice.
As usual, well off women middle class areas will not be affected much. It’s poor women who are already cutting it close between raising funds, traveling to distant clinics, etc. who will be forced in to having unwanted children (which I’m sure you will then complain about having to provide social services for.)
In the US alone pregnancy still kills hundreds of women each year:
The numbers are up in the last few years. Instead of forcing women into pregnancies they don’t want, how about we work to reduce the number of maternal deaths and serious complications from pregnancy?
To be fair to Bricker, although I think he’s completely wrong about this, I doubt he’d complain about that - he works, or at least worked, for a charity providing those very services.