Much as I think this is very bad law, I find it a touch humorous that the state may now be subsidizing abortions by paying for part of process, and a totally unnecessary part to boot. If that happens, that will be the next lawsuit by the pro-life people.
And once we see, what then? What’s the next step if this law fails to discourage enough women from having abortions? I’m no longer in Wisconsin, but during the time I was living there laws were added to require a 24-hour waiting period and an in-person anti-abortion “counseling” session before a woman could obtain an abortion. More than 90% of the counties in Wisconsin don’t even have an abortion provider, so for many women this means making two trips to another county. Yet all this has apparently failed to produce the results some people wanted, so now there’s going to be an ultrasound requirement as well.
I don’t need to wait and see to know that there will continue to be women in Wisconsin who really, sincerely want to have abortions, and I don’t think the women of Wisconsin – a group that includes members of my immediate family – should be expected to keep putting up with new restrictions every few years.
Making women jump through more hoops before getting an abortion isn’t “better”.
Maybe they can make abortion legal up to 20 weeks, with a 21 week waiting period.
Do you think only virgins can get raped? Reactionaries, some of them women, had similar responses to the proposed Virginia law. It’s still an issue of consent, among many other things.
It’s also very fiscally conservative, unlike this kind of legislation. That raises (not “begs”) a question: are these people anti-abortion, or anti-sex?
Are you defining “punish” to exclude “discourage abortion”? Otherwise, you can’t possibly believe what you said.
Well, it allows the state to mandate executions, and a doctor might concoct the lethal injection.
The law and the American people reject your premise.
Put on your belly-kicking shoes, nurse. (I’d do it myself, but, you know, Hippocratic oath.)
So, essentially the same experience a woman gets when she goes to a false-flag “family planning” clinic for an abortion and all they do is try to talk her out of it. But nothing so intrusive as showing her an ultrasound image of her own fetus, which they certainly would do in those clinics if they could. Gotcha.
Christian-rock band name!
No. I’m not sure what you found objectionable about that post. I simply stated something I thought the law would allow and also stated that I think it would be stupid, even though legal. Do you think the law, per Casey, would not allow such a requirement? If so, why? If not, then WTF?
Just putting it in perspective what such a law would imply; no constitutional argument.
I do wonder how all this is going to play out in November 2014.
Just another gynotician.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1000173_10151506139511275_1976755523_n.png
Def: A politician who knows more about women’s health care than the women and their doctors.
A fetal heartbeat has already cost at least one woman her life:
And here is a woman who very nearly died in a misguided attempt to save a nonviable baby–it had no brain:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/130604/el-salvador-woman-denied-abortion-delivers-dead-baby-c-section
They’re anti-woman.
Clearly. The folks who never ever get mentioned by these horrible people who pass these laws are the fathers. Surely there must be some way they could also be harassed and humiliated?
At the very least, shouldn’t* they* be forced to pay for these ultrasounds?
We stooped wimmins of the SDMB shall be eternally grateful to Bricker and his ilk for being there to tell us what’s what, since we obviously have no clue.
Much as I hate to pile on, this thread is a perfect example of how utterly odious Bricker is as a human being.
Because he is generally polite people take that as if he’s rational and reasonable. But he’s far from either. The pope has his shepherd’s crook so far up Bricker’s ass it clinks against his teeth.