Abortion Restrictions Blocked in Wisconsin

Credit: Gage Skidmore/wikimediaCredit: Gage Skidmore/wikimediaLast night a federal judge issued  a restraining order to halt enforcement of new abortion restrictions in Wisconsin which were due to take effect yesterday. U.S. District Judge William Conley issued the order following a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood filed Friday. Conley said "there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement." Critics of the bill, signed by Governor Scott Walker on Friday, say it could lead to the closure of half of the state's abortion clinics.

From Reuters:

The law requires women to undergo an ultrasound before they get an abortion and doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics."This bill improves a woman's ability to make an informed choice that will protect her physical and mental health now and in the future," said Tom Evenson, a spokesman for the governor. According to Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services, which are the state's two abortion providers, the law could prompt the closing of abortion clinics in Appleton and Milwaukee because doctors there do not have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The claim that the measures would protect women’s health was met with strong condemnation from pro-choice advocates.

Reuters again:

Admitting privileges "won't make women safer and, in fact, could jeopardize their health by depriving women in Wisconsin access to safe, high-quality healthcare," said obstetrician-gynecologist Anne Davis in a statement released by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

The new law in Wisconsin is the latest in a series of attempts to restrict access to abortion on the state level. Ohio Gov. John Kasich recently signed into law a raft of new abortion restrictions and the North Carolina state legislature has voted in favour of new licensing measures for abortion clinics. Meanwhile, Texas is still in a fierce battle over abortion restrictions following the delay from Sen. Wendy Davis's (D-Fort Worth) filibuster last month. Although support for Roe V. Wade is at an all time high, Republican legislatures have been increasingly active in seeking to impose new restrictions on abortion.  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Critics of the bill, signed by Governor Scott Walker on Friday, say it could lead to the closure of half of the state's abortion clinics."

    Bug or feature?

    "voted in favour of new licensing measures"

    "Favour" with a "u"? Aren't we hoity-toity?

  • rts||

    Aren't we hoity-toity?

    The guy's last name is Bentley, after all.

  • ||

    Ah, abortion. The TEAM RED "I'm going to retardedly die on this hill" version of TEAM BLUE and gun control. It's always reassuring to see that both TEAMs are equally stupid.

  • Brett L||

    Conley said "there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement."

    I sure do hope that justification is required for all state and federal laws beyond FYTW. I'm rooting for PP, but I don't think they've thought through how this affects their larger agenda.

  • ||

    Nothing could be better than PP winning this and undermining a bunch of other shitty laws at the same time. It would be poetic.

  • ||

    Too bad that won't happen and the government will go on fucking us in the ass and telling us to like it.

  • Brett L||

    and telling us to like it.

    What strange polity are you from where they bother telling you to like it?

  • ||

    I would argue that all the flowery words they expound on during election season IS the governments way of telling us to like it.

  • Brett L||

    Oh. I thought that was the makeup stage where they told us they'd never do that again (unless we really, really told them we wanted them to).

  • ||

    Well with election season starting 3 months after the previous election, it gets kinda hard to tell the stages apart.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except it won't. Intellectual consistency between policies they like and policies they don't like is the first place FYTW gets applied.

  • SeaCaptain(Yokeltarian)||

    You can't equate abortion to gun control.

  • anon||

    Believe he just did.

  • ||

    They're equal in that both sides get foaming at the mouth crazy about it. And that the banning of either one is not going to stop somebody from getting them.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Owning a gun doesn't kill anyone. It's a tool which can be used for good or ill - or not used at all.

    Abortion, by definition, destroys a living human being. Those who object to this sort of thing are not the same as people who totemistically object to the very existence of a weapon, a tool.

  • ||

    Dude, TEAM RED people can get bent all out of shape if you don't take a hardline stance on outlawing abortion, just like TEAM BLUE people do with outlawing guns. It's not that the situations are the same, it's the reactions of the people.

    And again, outright banning either one is not going to stop people from getting them if they want.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, TEAM LIBERTARIAN people can get bent all out of shape if you don't take a hardline stance on outlawing police brutality, despite the fact that it won't stop police from being breaking the law.

    So I don't see the significance of your attempt at moral equivalence. It means that people are strong against the things they're strongly against, and that there will always be lawless people who will do bad things even if those things are banned.

  • lap83||

    Exactly. Every issue has it's share of crazy irrational supporters. Mature people step back and look at the ideas themselves, not the ones who hold them.

  • ||

    Police brutality is already against the law. We don't like when they get away with it and apologist white wash it (racist!).

    And you don't see us firebombing police stations to prove our point.

    (Sidenote: I am against abortion on moral grounds, but since I don't have a vagina I try to not get too bent out of shape over it.)

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Over half the babies killed in abortion are female - so you don't get too bent out of shape over it?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "And you don't see us firebombing police stations to prove our point."

    You don't see us snipping the spines of babies after they're born, and puttig dead babies in the toilet.

    What's that - you don't like being linked with Kermit Gosnell? You suddenly oppose guilt by association?

  • ||

    Since I am not a woman, it's not my place to say what they should do with their bodies. Especially by using the gun of the state to do it.

    That has no bearing on whether or not I agree with abortion morally. But thanks for proving my point that both sides get overemotional and are prone to attacks if you upset their sensibilities.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    There are two separate bodies in the other view. How hard is that to understand, exactly?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "Since I am not a woman, it's not my place to say what they should do with their bodies. Especially by using the gun of the state to do it.

    That has no bearing on whether or not I agree with abortion morally."

    Except that argument doesn't make sense. If it's immoral it's because the fetus is being attacked by the abortionist at the behest of the woman in question. Otherwise, I'm hard pressed to say it's immoral. But, if it is an attack on the fetus, it's wrong regardless of whether you are a man or a woman.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I am against abortion on moral grounds, but since I don't have a vagina I try to not get too bent out of shape over it.

    Sorry, but that's a cop-out answer. Why, exactly, are you against it on moral grounds? If not based on concern for the fetus, I can't really see much reason to oppose it on moral grounds. But, if it IS out of concern for the fetus, your status of having a vagina or not is beside the point. It would, if you considered a fetus a person (I tend not to until well into the pregnancy), be roughly equivalent to a statement like "I oppose slavery, but since I'm not a plantation owner I try not to get too bent out of shape over it."

  • Mr. Soul||

    I propose TEAM GRAY for libertarianism. It has a catchy ring to it and evokes memories of the Neutral Planet in Futurama.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The term "Shades of Gray" nowadays means either you're into lady-porn or you're a Confederate re-enactor. Sorry.

  • Homple||

    Needz moar dead babies.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "Abortion, by definition, destroys a living human being."

    Except it's not clear that it is a human being per se at that point.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The choicers themselves are beginning to drop this talking point.

    "Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides....

    "When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory....

    "When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand...

    "...[Prolifers] believe that if we call a fetus a life they can go down the road of making abortion murder. And I think that’s what concerns the hell out of those of us who support unrestricted reproductive freedom.

    "But we make choices about life all the time in our country. We make them about men and women in other nations. We make them about prisoners in our penal system. We make them about patients with terminal illnesses and accident victims.[etc.]...

    "It seems absurd to suggest that the only thing that makes us fully human is the short ride out of some lady’s vagina."

    http://www.salon.com/2013/01/2.....ends_life/

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Are you really going to hold up Salon as the fount of intellectual rigour (see, I can get in on the act)? Fuckers want A to be non-A. Surprise, surprise. That doesn't negate the distinction between A and B.

  • ||

    I didn't think it's humanity was in question, only it's personhood. Why they're different is beyond me, but that's the argument pro-choicers make so it is for them to argue in favour.

    Wow, it feels weird typing Limey.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "I didn't think it's humanity was in question, only it's personhood. Why they're different is beyond me..."

    Okay. Let me take a stab at it (no pun intended). Longstanding societal premise - rights proceed from reason. That's why we don't give minors or those not of sound mind the same rights as the rest of us. But, prior to some point in the fetal development process, there's well, nothing. There's tissue. A clump of cells that has all the humanity of a low-level bacterial parasite. At a later point, there's neural activity. I'm inclined to give that human status. But, a fertilized egg, just because it has 48 chromosomes? No.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Gah!! 46 chromosomes!!

  • lap83||

    At the heart of gun control is a flawed argument with mounds of evidence against it.
    At the heart of the pro-life movement is simply a moral stance.

    How are they similar?

  • wareagle||

    they are similar with regard to being partisan hobby horses that often feature specious arguments in advancing a case. On the first, we have a Constitutional protection contained within the Bill of Rights. On the second, a SCOTUS decision that extended the right to privacy for a three month window, the first trimester.

    The left, almost exclusively pro-choice and anti-gun, sees a moral stance in both fronts of its argument. Likewise, the mostly pro-life and pro-gun right sees a moral argument with regard to abortion and a legal one for guns.

    The point is, you will get farther telling an imam that porn is okay that convincing either side of the gun/abortion issue to change.

  • Rasilio||

    And in both cases the side that wants a government ban is wildly out of touch with what the majority of people believed.

    If Republicans could actually show themselves to only be concerned with the relatively rare late term abortions and government funding of abortions they would very quickly be able to put in place some common sense regulation that most people would support but it is quite clear by both their words and actions that any common sense restrictions that may be supported on their own are merely steps towards an eventual total ban on abortion and criminal charges for women who have miscarriages

  • SeaCaptain(Yokeltarian)||

    "women’s health was met with strong condemnation from pro-choice advocates"

    Let the murdering assholes bitch and squeal...its what they make babies do. And FUCK the "prochoice" label. This group of raving dogs are the absolute least entitled to group for the title of "prochoice".

  • ||

    Uh oh, somebody gets upset when a clump of cells gets removed! Because, like, it has a soul or something, right? Murder! Raving Dogs!

  • SeaCaptain(Yokeltarian)||

    You're a clump of cells. Can I remove you?

  • anon||

    Parasite is a more appropriate term.

    If it cannot sustain its own life, does it have a right to the host's life?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You don't just get to invite in a houseguest, revoke his privileges and then shoot him in the face.

    And yes, children have a positive right to sustenance and support from their legal guardians. Otherwise you really don't believe in any sort of child neglect laws.

  • anon||

    And yes, children have a positive right to sustenance and support from their legal guardians. Otherwise you really don't believe in any sort of child neglect laws.

    I see, another version of shriek. I can tell by the inane use of false dichotomies and appeals to emotion.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    On what grounds would you charge a parent who failed to feed, clothe or bathe his child with neglect, if not on the grounds that the child has a positive right to these things?

    Seriously, if you aren't going to state your case plainly, then don't bother. Your immediate descent into name-calling tells me you don't think.

  • anon||

    if not on the grounds that the child has a positive right to these things?

    No man has a positive right to food/baths/clothes. You don't lose these "rights" when you turn 18, because you've never had them.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Children aren't "men". That's the whole point.

    If you take a man and render him helpless through your own actions (e.g. cripple him in a car accident), you have to pay to sustain him provided he gets a valid judgment against you.

    If you bring a helpless being into existence through your own actions, you owe him care.

    So, no, just to be brief, you do not believe in child neglect laws, correct? There is no reason in your mind to compel parents to take care of their children?

  • anon||

    Children aren't "men". That's the whole point.

    History suggests otherwise.

    If you take a man and render him helpless through your own actions (e.g. cripple him in a car accident), you have to pay to sustain him provided he gets a valid judgment against you.

    Strawman.

    If you bring a helpless being into existence through your own actions, you owe him care.

    Nope.

    If you bring a helpless being into existence through your own actions, you owe him care.

    Red Herring.

    There is no reason in your mind to compel parents to take care of their children?

    No, there isn't. People cared for their children for thousands of years without any laws to compel them to do so. What makes you believe that parents don't actually *want* to care for their children?

  • anon||

    So, no, just to be brief, you do not believe in child neglect laws, correct?

    Err, woops, that's the red herring. I blame lack of proofreading.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You already answered the question: no, you do not believe in child neglect laws. You do not believe parents have an affirmative duty to care for their children. You do affirmatively believe that if a parent leaves his child say, on the street and denies him entry into the parent's house, that's not a crime or even actionable.

  • anon||

    That's a nice clump of assumptions based on a strawman that I didn't even answer. Thanks for outing yourself Shriek.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Back to the name-calling, which is what people do when they are being beaten in an argument.

    If you want to refute my deductions from your own logical premises, by all means, point out the flaws in my reasoning.

  • anon||

    There's no "argument" to be had here, because you've done nothing but offer logical fallacies.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    you keep asserting that. But you're wrong.

  • anon||

    Compelling "argument."

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I assert you created an obligation on yourself by creating the being. It was your choice to create the being, the being does not have the power to take care of itself, that's your fault and is therefore your responsibility to rectify.

    If you don't like it, then argue against it.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    If you bring a helpless being into existence through your own actions, you owe him care.

    Nope.

    Compelling argument. Thanks for the raft of evidence and argumentation.

  • anon||

    Compelling argument. Thanks for the raft of evidence and argumentation.

    It really is. What do you liberals not understand about the fact that I don't "owe" my life to anyone?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You do when you obligate yourself, which you do when you create a helpless being. If you didn't want the resposibility for caring for a helpless being, you shouldn't have created the helpless being in the first place.

  • anon||

    You do when you obligate yourself, which you do when you create a helpless being. If you didn't want the resposibility for caring for a helpless being, you shouldn't have created the helpless being in the first place.

    You assume that the being is helpless, and you further assume that I give a shit about "helpless" beings.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You created the situation.

    By your logic, there is nothing wrong with tossing a live baby in a dumpster.

  • anon||

    Morality has nothing to do with legality.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Fine. By your logic, it should be legal to place a baby in a dumpster.

  • anon||

    I like how you keep asserting these appeals to emotion as facts.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I am drawing the logical conclusion. That's a completely consistent conclusion to draw from your own premises. If you don't like it, type more than LOGIKAL FALLAZIES.

  • anon||

    If you don't like it, type more than LOGIKAL FALLAZIES.

    Why would I argue on your terms about shit I haven't said?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Just because you didn't say something doesn't mean you don't believe it. That's why i keep asking you the questions, which you fail to respond to.

  • anon||

    Ever think that perhaps I don't have the time to explain morality, ethics and logic to a moron?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    It isn't that you don't have the time. it's that you lack the ability and requisite knowledge, as evidenced by your repeated misinvocations of "logical fallacies" and your total inability to plainly state your point.

  • anon||

    To quote a great man I know (myself):

    No, there isn't. People cared for their children for thousands of years without any laws to compel them to do so. What makes you believe that parents don't actually *want* to care for their children?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    What makes you believe that parents don't actually *want* to care for their children?

    The thousands of cases of parental neglect that occur every year. The fact that we do in fact find babies in trash cans.

  • anon||

    The fact that we do in fact find babies in trash cans.

    And the law stopped these things from happening. Obviously.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    And the law stopped these things from happening. Obviously.

    The law hasn't stopped murder, so let's legalize murder.

  • anon||

    Jesus fuck, I thought you wanted to talk about abortion. Why do you keep using logical fallacies to try to get people to agree with you? Why do you care so much about controlling others?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Your logic is flawed. I am pointing that out. Just because the law has not stopped X does not now mean X should be legal. I don't believe it should be legal to place your baby out in the middle of a snowstorm just because the law hasn't stopped people from doing just that. That's a flawed argument from you.

  • anon||

    Your logic is flawed. I am pointing that out. Just because the law has not stopped X does not now mean X should be legal.

    No, it's not. You're the one saying that abortions should be illegal because baby in trashcans, then basically continuing on to say that it should be the law because it's morally wrong to find babies in trashcans.

    It's so convoluted it's impossible to follow, because of all of your logical fallacies.

    Laws and morality are two separate things. You cannot legislate morality; however, you can create just laws based upon morality.

    My morals say it's wrong to dump babies in trashcans; my morals also say it's wrong to make it illegal for a woman to do anything but commit an illegal action.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You're the one saying that abortions should be illegal because baby in trashcans

    I didn't say that. We were talking about whether a child had positive rights to food, shelter and clothing. Have you followed this discussion at all?

    My morals say it's wrong to dump babies in trashcans; my morals also say it's wrong to make it illegal for a woman to do anything but commit an illegal action.

    So if she really really wants to kill something, we have to make it legal? What?

  • anon||

    It has to be a person to have rights; if it can't sustain its own life it can't have rights.

    Also, done for now, but I will return after work.

  • ||

    I think what NlK is saying is that it is illegal to abandon your 2 year old, which means it has positive rights. NlK thinks that a fetus should have the same positive rights as the two year old, hence abortion should be illegal as well.

    But damn threading makes it hard for me to follow conversations sometimes so I could be wrong.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Why do you care so much about controlling others?

    Why do you care so much about murder you're willing to pass laws to punish it?

  • SugarFree||

    Will using state force to ensure women give birth to unwanted children going to make the "baby in trashcan" rate go up or down?

  • anon||

    Will using state force to ensure women give birth to unwanted children going to make the "baby in trashcan" rate go up or down?

    Thank you for stating what I'm saying basically in a nutshell.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    SugarFree, that's actually rather tangential to the point. Just because we don't want to take care of the elderly, for example, doesn't mean we should shoot the elderly.

  • anon||

    Just because we don't want to take care of the elderly, for example, doesn't mean we should shoot the elderly.

    Which only you've suggested.

  • anon||

    You're also equating a being that can sustain its own life independent of other beings with an organism that can not.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Salty asked you about 9-year-olds earlier and you refused to answer that as well.

  • anon||

    No, I didn't; I pointed him to the "biological parasite" reference.

  • Homple||

    So tell me about how many of us can sustain life independent of other beings? Do you have home-made internet in your log cabin constructed with an ax that you forged yourself from iron ore that you dug up (with a tree branch you found) and smelted in a fire that you started from rubbing sticks together? You get you food, how, exactly?

    When you've done this, then talk about sustaining life independent of other beings. Not theoretically, but in practice.

  • SugarFree||

    It's only tangential unless you aren't willing to make any distinction between a live birth and a pre-viable fetus (to which the vast majority of abortions occur.)

    Better RU-486 or a simple D&C than a baby freezing to death in a trashcan is my stance.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I never said anything about preventing abortion at conception. But it's pretty evident to me the child acquires rights before birth. There's nothing magical about birth that endows a being with rights.

    And if the child acquires rights before birth, that definitionally requires some "control" over the mother's "choice" to then murder it.

  • SugarFree||

    If Walker closes down half the clinics and Perry closes down 90% of them, then that's a lot of pre-viable fetuses that won't be aborted. Which most socons are going to applaud. The vast majority of people who want to ban abortion aren't interested in the fine gradations of when personhood applies.

  • ||

    What makes you believe that parents don't actually *want* to care for their children?

    Abortion, for one.

  • ||

    Well at least you're consistent.

  • ||

    At a certain point haven't you de facto agreed to the parasite* taking up residence?

    *If it's a parasite in the womb, is it not also a parasite at 12? Seeing as how they both require massive amounts of time and energy to support them.

  • anon||

    is it not also a parasite at 12?

    No, we're using parasite in the literal biological meaning here, not the metaphysical meaning.

  • ||

    Except a biological parasite, by definition has to be of a different kind (ie: species).

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    That is going to be ignored by anon because it's inconvenient to his argument.

  • anon||

    Well, ok, you can get the idea though. It cannot survive without its host.

    Should we say Chlamydia has rights too?

  • ||

    Does the Chlamydia have the potential to become a Human? No? Then I guess not.

    Just so we're clear, I'm not necessarily saying the fetus has rights, just that it's not a parasite or a virus or a cancer.

  • anon||

    I know. I'm just saying it's absurd to put the *potential* rights of something that *might* live to become a human who's parents don't want it over the rights of an actual person.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    At what point in time does it acquire rights?

  • anon||

    When it can breathe and eat without its mother's body performing those actions for it.

  • ||

    So about one?

  • Rasilio||

    Actually no, that would be about 28 to maybe 30 weeks into the pregnancy.

  • free2booze||

    Can or capable?

    I think we can all agree that a fetus reaches a point when it possesses the capability to survive outside of the womb, but is still relying on the mother to eat and breath, because her body hasn't began the process of performing labor.

  • anon||

    I'd personally say capable, but whatever. Certainly not before it's capable.

  • Overt||

    So you are saying a Human Being only has rights if it has the ability to Breathe on its own and Eat on its own?

    (Leave aside the fact that a human baby 1 day out of the womb has no ability to eat. It's body can metabolize mother's milk, but it is MORE dependent on the mother outside the womb than it is inside).

  • SeaCaptain(Yokeltarian)||

    "If it cannot sustain its own life, does it have a right to the host's life?"

    Somebody obviously slept through 8th grade Biology.

    At what age do children become "self-sufficient"? I hope you aren't saying that parasitical 9 year olds can be "terminated".

  • anon||

    See above.

  • Overt||

    "See above"

    Oh you mean above where you confuse your (mistaken) assertion of logical fallacy with arguments?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Yes, that exactly, apparently.

  • anon||

    How can I argue with something that doesn't use logic? Exercise in futility.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Parasites are a different species than the host.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    A twenty-week fetus is not a "clump of cells" by any stretch of the imagination.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It absolutely is a clump of cells... But so are fully formed adult humans.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I agree with that as well. There are two uses of the phrase "clump of cells", and the equivocating on them make me concerned.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It is the implied "just" that is a problem.

  • kinnath||

    Admitting privileges "won't make women safer and, in fact, could jeopardize their health by depriving women in Wisconsin access to safe, high-quality healthcare," said obstetrician-gynecologist Anne Davis in a statement released by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

    Safe,high-quality healthcare from doctors that can't admit their patients to a hospital when the inevitable mistakes gets made (humans being humans and what not).

  • Brett L||

    It doesn't even require a mistake, just differing physiologies guaranteed by us all having different gene expression.

  • kinnath||

    So the real question is what happens today when an abortion has complications and a patient needs urgent or emergency care that cannot be provided by the clinic.

    Do they dial 911 like an ordinary citizen if they don't have admitting privileges?

  • SugarFree||

    Admitting privileges are not required for emergency patients.

    It's a poison pill and nothing else. They want them to have it so that the hospital that gives them privileges are open to boycotts and protests that will either keep hospitals from granting them or revoke them under pressure. This is exact reason abortion clinics were set up in the first place.

    This has nothing to do with quality of care.

  • Brett L||

    So, given the state of the Wisconsin, even MORE docs could be granted admitting privileges?

  • SugarFree||

    Please clarify.

  • Brett L||

    Well, if they are subject to pressure, certainly the pro-abortions could bring pressure and Wisconsin may be swinging but is currently about 50/50. So the argument seems like it could go both ways. I don't think the government should be in the middle of this, but pressure goes both ways.

  • SugarFree||

    Given the religious affiliations of many hospitals, it wouldn't break 50/50.

    And there's nothing to keep the state from stepping in later to say public hospitals can't grant admitting privileges to abortion providers.

    This move is like instituting shall issue concealed carry when you know 90% of local police are going to deny any and all applications.

  • ||

    But requiring this is exactly the same thing as completely taking their choice away!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Conley said "there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement."
    So, requiring an ultrasound is okay, but requiring a medical provider to have hospital admitting privileges isn't? Sorry, but this strikes me as more of a results-oriented decision than a process oriented decision.

  • ||

    From my understanding, they already perform the damn ultrasound in order to locate said parasite for extermination.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Did Wisconsin block alt-text too?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Although support for Roe V. Wade is at an all time high, Republican legislatures have been increasingly active in seeking to impose new restrictions on abortion.

    Yes, and Roe V. Wade allows for restrictions, within reason. Roe V. Wade may be as popular as ever, but so are many of these restrictions.

  • SugarFree||

    And the ultrasound requirement has been struck down in a few states and the admitting privileges part wouldn't survive a SCOTUS review. So for the sake a sop to the socons, Walker has spent taxpayer money on a doomed effort and spent political capital on non-economic freedom issues. And, like Perry, given Hilary a bloody shirt to wave in 2016.

    Great job, Scotty.

  • Bernieyeball||

    A.D.: It absolutely is a clump of cells... But so are fully formed adult humans.

    As Ren would lambaste Stimpy: "A.D. YOU BLOATED SACK OF PROTOPLASM!"

  • OldMexican||

    The new law in Wisconsin is the latest in a series of attempts to restrict access to abortion on the state level.


    What a way to use the spinning wheel there, Guy! You say "restrict access to abortion" as if it was equivalent to drowning puppies.

    Although support for Roe V. Wade is at an all time high,


    Support for late-term abortion (i.e. severing the spines of babies) is at an all-time high, or is support for what people think when they talk about abortion (taking out a two-week tadpole) at an all-time high? Do tell us the truth, Captain Conflator!

  • Gbob||

    On the fence about the abortion issue itself, but it seems that this is another attempt for the state to do an end run around existing laws. If you wish to outlaw abortions, than work to it. Trying to use regulatory power to make access to a legal procedure more difficult is the same kind of bullying that you see with smoking, drinking, gun ownership or any one of a thousand things that some members of the government don't like.

    Forcing doctors to play political games is a dangerous slope. How are we going to like it ten years from now when nanny state nitwits try using the same tactics for fatty foods? Doctors can't withhold treatment for people who like to eat fast food, but they will be forced to screen every overweight patient for cholesterol and show them nutrition videos. (Since, at this point, health care will be taxpayer supported, they will have a better case than the anti-abortionists do.)

    Can we set aside the abortion aspect of the debate and agree that this kind of over reach is exactly the kind of shit that got us to where we are today. Fuck statists, no matter if they're red or blue.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Can we set aside the abortion aspect of the debate"

    Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

    If you want to be neutral on the abortion issue, you can't swallow, whole hog, the choicer talking point that abortion is just another "medical procedure." Once you accept this, you're no longer "on the fence," but an out-and-proud choicer advocate. Sorry.

  • Gbob||

    Bullshit. Due process of laws and the ways laws are enforced is something that matters. To say that state abuse of power is bad unless it's an issue I care a great deal about is the kind of thinking that every single god damned tyrant has used.

    Walker wants to use regulations on medical providers to make a legal procedure more difficult to procure. His motivations might be pure ("I hate seeing dead babies") but his methods are bullshit.

    If you want to create a movement to add an amendment to the constitution that prohibits abortion, I'm totally willing to listen. Failing that, the only thing you accomplish is statist behavior.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "To say that state abuse of power is bad unless it's an issue I care a great deal about"

    I didn't say any such thing. You're the one saying it's an abuse of state power to enact even limited protections of human life in the womb.

  • ||

    Choicers also call "on the fencers" like Gbob Colonels in the War on Women with that exact same "you're either with us or against us" crap you're pulling.

  • Gbob||

    True dat. I would say that someone in the middle on this issue, however, gets far more heat from the pro abortion side than the anti abortion side.

    Just to echo what some folks above have said about it being a hill for team red to die on, the extremist position is not something that helps people like me decide. Just sayin'.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Your question-begging discussion of "trying to use regulatory power to make access to a legal procedure more difficult" is basically an echo of choicer talking points. Sorry, you'll have to try harder if you want to be truly moderate on this issue. Eg, find *some* form of late-term abortion you'd like to prohibit, rather than allowing 100% of abortions to remain legal.

    Let your extremist flag fly, if you wish. Or say something that's actually moderate.

  • General Butt Naked||

    If I could stab this thread in its soft, squishy skull with a pair of scissors and suck it our of Reason's servers with a shopvac, I totally would.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Too late, it's out of the womb. You should have gotten to it while Bentley was looking at the preview.

  • ||

    +1 back alley

  • Robert||

    Abortion proponents recognize that regulations make abortion more difficult or less available. Do they recognize the same effect on other medical services?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement