And now Wisconsin . . .

I try to see both sides of arguments, I do. When it comes to modern day politics, it becomes very difficult to do so. I don't understand what these politicians hope to gain with these attitudes towards women and their rights. This war should have been over after Roe Vs. Wade. They didn't get their way, and now they will do anything to obstruct that law until it becomes meaningless.

Maybe Gov. Walker should try getting one of those ultrasounds and see how okay he is with it then.

Gratuitous and cruel, but unsurprising from that quarter.

I was trying to work up a modest proposal wherein physicians are required to make men who present for treatment of erectile dysfunction demonstrate flaccidity, but I can't make it work without sounding creepy.

I'll repeat what I said in the other thread:

I'm sure this is going to sound horrible, but any woman who voted for the republicans there has no one to blame but themselves. Social conservatives don't really hide their stance on abortion, or a lot of other things that concern women and minorities.

Click to expand...

It's amazing that social conservatives republicans can still use the term, small government, with a straight face.

TerzaRima said:

I was trying to work up a modest proposal wherein physicians are required to make men who present for treatment of erectile dysfunction demonstrate flaccidity, but I can't make it work without sounding creepy.

Click to expand...

Go for it. Of course it's going to sound creepy. Swift set the bar high with the original.

We could always regulate and license fluffers. That would separate the real problem cases from those who simply aren't getting appropriate stimulation.

Please enlighten me. I truly don't understand the problems with an ultrasound. I've had several when I had a bruised kidney and felt no discomfort.

Is the reason for the ultrasound to prevent an unneccesary abortion, or is it to see how far along the pregnancy is? I would support the former and question the latter.

Don said:

Go for it. Of course it's going to sound creepy. Swift set the bar high with the original.

We could always regulate and license fluffers. That would separate the real problem cases from those who simply aren't getting appropriate stimulation.

Click to expand...

Now I'm envisioning a high-concept game show. The dude wanting a script has an obstacle course to clear, said course populated with some number of women who are promised cash and prizes if they prove he doesn't need the script. Of course, he's in original Olympic garb, just to make it interesting.

Something like American Ninja Warrior or Wipeout, but with boobies.

The Arbitrons would be off the chart.

ColoradoGuy said:

So a man thinks medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds are "just fine."

Words fail.

Click to expand...

Where does it say, "vaginal," ultrasound? Every OB ultrasound that I've ever seen was performed from a suprapubic approach, not vaginally.

I've been truly disappointed in my state for some time now.


To the woman who mentioned Republican-voting women, I know several; they aren't sluts and whores so the whole abortion thing doesn't impact them the way, oh, getting $50 back on property taxes does. Their teen daughters are not sluts or whores, and immune to both date rape and careless or straying partners, so they don't need the HPV vaccination either.

some folks really do get the elected officials they deserve :-(


*sarcasm alert in case it wasn't apparent re: sluts and whores

PorterStarrByrd said:

Please enlighten me. I truly don't understand the problems with an ultrasound. I've had several when I had a bruised kidney and felt no discomfort.

Is the reason for the ultrasound to prevent an unneccesary abortion, or is it to see how far along the pregnancy is? I would support the former and question the latter.

Click to expand...

You have not had this kind of ultrasound - I have, and trust me, it's both uncomfortable and mortifying. And if you're talking a rape victim, it can easily be the kind of thing that would cause the women to relive the experience.

Either way, it sounds like you're in favor of the slut-shaming aspect of this and not in favor of the only actual medical context of what the ultrasound might be able to tell?

Please tell me I'm wrong...

ColoradoGuy said:

The ultrasound is intended to erect a new hurdle for a woman to get an abortion and discourage her from getting it. There is no medical indication. And what would constitute in your mind "an unnecessary abortion"?

Click to expand...

And, presumably, to add to the cost of the abortion.

PorterStarrByrd said:

Please enlighten me. I truly don't understand the problems with an ultrasound. I've had several when I had a bruised kidney and felt no discomfort.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression from various previous posts of yours that you believe government is too intrusive in the lives of citizens.

But if you have no problem with a law that requires by force of government law, that a woman undergo an ultrasound against her will, even if her physician also deems it unnecessary and does not recommend the procedure, please enlighten me as to why.

rugcat said:

I was under the impression from various previous posts of yours that you believe government is too intrusive in the lives of citizens.

Click to expand...

rugcat said:

But if you have no problem with a law that requires by force of government law, that a woman undergo an ultrasound against her will, even if her physician also deems it unnecessary and does not recommend the procedure, please enlighten me as to why.

Click to expand...

With the caveat that internally inconsistent positions on the proper scope of government power can be found on either side of the isle, I think this is an excellent example of the undercooked nature of personal political philosophy in modern life.

What I get from these efforts (forced ultrasounds) is broader than "slut shaming." To me, it’s about rubbing a woman's nose in the gory details of abortion ("Look, just look at what you are doing! See those little arms?''). It's about engendering guilt.[SUP]1[/SUP] I find this cruel, knowing full well the others will say “hey, if the truth hurts....”

The idea behind forced ultrasounds, it seems to me, is to make the hard decisions harder. I am just guessing, but I tend to doubt that proponents of these measures truly believe that the "careless, cavalier sluts" of their imaginations are going to be persuaded to forgo an abortion by an ultrasound. Somehow I think that the true targets are thoughtful, reflective women who also happen to be struggling to make what, for them, is an already a hard decision. Some call this “education” (like showing pictures of cancer ridden lungs). I call it misguided.

fn1 Some mental health professionals hold that guilt (concern for the thing done) is useful, whereas as shame (concern for the "self") is not. Whatever the case, it doesn't change my view of the wrongfulness of coercion.


ETA: not sure why I am get these "split" quotes. Even when I edit them out, they reappear upon hitting save :-/

dfwtinman said:

With the caveat that internally inconsistent positions on the proper scope of government power can be found on either side of the isle, I think this is an excellent example of the undercooked nature of personal political philosophy in modern life.

What I get from these efforts (forced ultrasounds) is broader than "slut shaming." To me, it’s about rubbing a woman's nose in the gory details of abortion ("Look, just look at what you are doing! See those little arms?''). It's about engendering guilt.[SUP]1[/SUP] I find this cruel, knowing full well the others will say “hey, if the truth hurts....”

The idea behind forced ultrasounds, it seems to me, is to make the hard decisions harder. I am just guessing, but I tend to doubt that proponents of these measures truly believe that the "careless, cavalier sluts" of their imaginations are going to be persuaded to forgo an abortion by an ultrasound. Somehow I think that the true targets are thoughtful, reflective women who also happen to be struggling to make what, for them, is an already a hard decision. Some call this “education” (like showing pictures of cancer ridden lungs). I call it misguided.

fn1 Some mental health professionals hold that guilt (concern for the thing done) is useful, whereas as shame (concern for the "self") is not. Whatever the case, it doesn't change my view of the wrongfulness of coercion.


ETA: not sure why I am get these "split" quotes. Even when I edit them out, they reappear upon hitting save :-/

Click to expand...

These things cost money. Money is a prohibitive factor for many women who want/need an abortion. It is a very intrusive procedure, requiring women to have them, by law, is nothing but a bid to undercut Roe Vs. Wade. These bafoons still can't come to the realization that they lost this war - a long time ago.

K.B. Parker said:

These things cost money. Money is a prohibitive factor for many women who want/need an abortion. It is a very intrusive procedure, requiring women to have them, by law, is nothing but a bid to undercut Roe Vs. Wade. These bafoons still can't come to the realization that they lost this war - a long time ago.

Click to expand...

Just so it's clear, the goal of such legislative efforts, imo, is to reduce the number of abortions. I expressly said it was a cruel and misquided effort. The principle method by which I thought the intended aim was to be accomplished is the focus of my prior post. All of this is anecdotal, barring some analysis of data on women who say such measures resulted in their foregoing an abortion.

K.B. Parker said:

It is a very intrusive procedure, requiring women to have them, by law, is nothing but a bid to undercut Roe Vs. Wade. These bafoons still can't come to the realization that they lost this war - a long time ago.

Click to expand...

No, sorry to say, a battle was won a long time ago. but the war is still very much in question. TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Laws) have passed in several states targeting abortion clinics, imposing regulations that are impossible to meet. We will see if they eventually pass constitutional muster.

As far as Roe v Wade goes, it would take only one additional conservative supreme court justice to overthrow it -- and don't think they wouldn't.

Someone should shove an ultrasound wand into one of Scott Walker's orifices and ask him if he minds it. And maybe they should do it after he's had to make what might be one of the most agonizing decisions of his life.

He should be junkpunched for that comment. Junkpunched hard.

And then given the ultrasound.

RichardGarfinkle said:

There is the alternative theory that the goal is not to reduce abortions, but to punish women who choose to have abortions. There are a number of methods that actually do reduce the number of abortions (free availability of birth control and education for a start).

These actually workable methods are routinely rejected (links available on request).

Cruel methods, on the other hand, satisfy the self-righteous without actually doing any good.

There's also quite a lot of demonstrable misogyny in this kind of legislation (demonstrable in the debates at minimum).

Click to expand...

I condede that other theories may explain the phenomenon.

That said, punishment is often employed as an engine of deterrence.

I am not so sure all that much light gets between the cruelty I mentioned and the misogyny you refer to.

TerzaRima said:

Gratuitous and cruel, but unsurprising from that quarter.

I was trying to work up a modest proposal wherein physicians are required to make men who present for treatment of erectile dysfunction demonstrate flaccidity, but I can't make it work without sounding creepy.

Click to expand...

What a coincidence. Scott Walker and similar rightwing pols can't propose sticking wands up women's privvies out of pure petulance without sounding creepy, too.

The purpose of these ultrasounds is intimidation, plain and simple. There are other ways to achieve all the other effects they want or claim to want, but this -- the approach that makes being forcibly penetrated with an object as a kind of surcharge for seeking access to a legal medical procedure -- is the one that really delivers on humiliation, degradation, and triggering fear.

If they want to reduce the number of abortions, they could throw all their efforts into promoting comprehensive sex ed and ready access to contraception.

If they want to increase the cost of abortions, they can invoke TRAP laws.

If they want to block access to abortion, they can hack away at the right with ever more restrictive definitions and limitations.

Demanding that a woman must submit to having an object inserted into her vagina and to look at ultrasound images before she will be allowed to get an abortion is nothing but a tactic to intimidate women into not seeking abortions at all. It is a bastard move, because it is choosing to be cruel when there are less cruel options available.