Wisconsin passes abortion ban

**Correction** · 2013-07-05 20:39

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/w...6#.Udd0Rfm1F8F

Under the new Wisconsin law, any woman seeking an abortion would have to get an ultrasound. The technician would have to point out the fetus' visible organs and external features. Abortion providers would have to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles to perform the procedures.

Walker, a Republican, didn't sign the bill in public, instead sending out a statement early Friday afternoon saying the bill was now law.

"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," the statement said.

Nice work Wisconsin. Now all you have to do is ban women from driving and voting and you'll officially be back in the 19th century.

**Howie Roary** · 2013-07-05 20:42

how is that a ban

**Correction** · 2013-07-05 20:48

Originally Posted by Howie Roary

how is that a ban

Clinics are closing. It's a ban in sheep's clothing, crafted to slide around supreme court rulings and collect donations from fundamentalist christians while it gets fought in court.

**hey** · 2013-07-05 20:52

Originally Posted by Howie Roary

how is that a ban

It's as close to a ban as they can possibly get. Good luck getting an abortion in Wisconsin now.

**Aristio** · 2013-07-05 21:06

Originally Posted by Howie Roary

how is that a ban

They're planning to prey on a woman's emotions. They'll make the rational choice to get the abortion because of some reasonable explanation. Then they'll go into a clinic and be forced to see their future child who about to be terminated. Then that motherly instinct kicks in and they keep a child they essentially never wanted.

It's not a ban, yes; but with how they now have to have clinics within 30 miles of a hospital with certain privileges, there will be quite a restriction on where you can get one. I expect more dumpster babies and alleyway operations.

**Niiro** · 2013-07-05 21:10

Originally Posted by Derock

Isn't this the same thing that the Texas lady just filibustered down there? Just curious.

Sounds similar, it's the same tactic used all over the country.

Since they can't outright ban it they just throw up as many ridiculous regulations, restrictions, and prerequisites as possible to make the process as complicated and intrusive as they can while at the same time cutting the number of clinics that can legally perform abortions to just a few.

**archibaldcrane** · 2013-07-05 21:13

Originally Posted by Derock

Isn't this the same thing that the Texas lady just filibustered down there? Just curious.

Texas already had an ultrasound requirement, Texas's law was about "hospital admission privileges" (as is Wisconsin's) and outlawing abortion after 20 weeks (Supreme Court has ruled that "viability" is the point at which abortion can be additionally restricted, which is generally understood to be 24 weeks, which would make this law potentially unconstitutional). Wisconsin's law is about whether the abortion provider has "hospital admission privileges" (which I believe will close one of the four clinics in Wisconsin) and requiring ultrasounds for women before they have an abortion, regardless of medical necessity.

**Kuya** · 2013-07-05 21:14

Conservative groups seem far more ahead in this campaign to get rid of abortion.

**archibaldcrane** · 2013-07-05 21:15

Can someone clear up whether these restrictions apply to pill-administered abortions via RU-486 (mifepristone) as well? Considering those can only be used in the first 9 weeks, and during that time an ultrasound would show roughly jack fucking shit and being a pill "hospital admitting privileges" would be meaningless - anyone?

**BaneTheBrawler** · 2013-07-06 06:09

not really surprised by this. i used to live there, you know. i'm going to die there, you know. convenient.

**Plow** · 2013-07-06 07:38

I really don't get the whole hospital admittance thing.

Is it a matter of hospitals refusing to grant privileges?

It really doesn't seem that unreasonable to require clinics for something as intrusive as abortion to be reasonably close to full on medical facilities, at first glance at least.

**kuronosan** · 2013-07-06 08:37

Considering that abortions are considered minor surgeries and are outpatient procedures that can be performed in a clinic, there is very little reason to require it to take place in a facility that can admit a patient.

**Correction** · 2013-07-06 09:08

Originally Posted by Plow

It really doesn't seem that unreasonable to require clinics for something as intrusive as abortion to be reasonably close to full on medical facilities, at first glance at least.

This is explained in the story I linked.

Hospitals often grant privileges only to physicians who guarantee a minimum number of annual referrals, a requirement the abortion providers can't meet because abortion problems that require hospitalization are rare, according to the lawsuit. And some hospitals won't grant admitting privileges to abortion providers out of political, ideological or religious reasons, the lawsuit added.

Even in the case of an emergency an ambulance can get to the clinic to stabilize a patient and transport them to the hospital, admitting privileges are redundant.

**hey** · 2013-07-06 09:13

Originally Posted by Plow

It really doesn't seem that unreasonable to require clinics for something as intrusive as abortion to be reasonably close to full on medical facilities, at first glance at least.

Maybe if it was really that intrusive. Either way, being close to a hospital is quite different from requiring the doctor to have admitting privileges there.

**archibaldcrane** · 2013-07-06 09:17

Midwives aren't required to have "hospital admitting privileges" and there's a significantly more likely chance of needing a hospital for giving birth than for having an abortion.

**test123** · 2013-07-06 09:31

How many abortions could be avoided if women took birth control before sleeping around? There are ways to reduce abortions without banning them. Whats wrong with banning after 12 weeks? If you haven't decided after 3 months then just keep it....

**Blubbartron** · 2013-07-06 09:42

God fucking dammit Wisconsin... I can't tell if it's incredibly demeaning to women or if they just understand the differences between men and women very well, but the idea to force women to get an ultrasound prior to an abortion is the most dirty, underhanded tactic that an individual could come up with.

**Correction** · 2013-07-06 09:57

Originally Posted by test123

How many abortions could be avoided if women took birth control before sleeping around?

"sleeping around?" What the fuck?

Also, more often than not the same mongs who want to ban abortion also want to restrict access to birth control.

From 2010:

While in the state Legislature, Scott Walker supported a bill that made it OK for any pharmacist to deny a woman access to birth control.

Now take a quick guess as to the political affiliation of the members of the Wisconsin state legislature who support both full insurance coverage for birth control and a woman's right to an abortion?

**ringthree** · 2013-07-06 10:07

Originally Posted by test123

How many abortions could be avoided if women took birth control before sleeping around? There are ways to reduce abortions without banning them. Whats wrong with banning after 12 weeks? If you haven't decided after 3 months then just keep it....

Fucking sluts! Why do they even put shoes on when they should never be out of the kitchen! Then they wouldn't need the birth control that we want to ban too!

**ronin sparthos** · 2013-07-06 10:10

Its like some people dont know what misdirection is. This legilslation is guised as compassionate but simply aims to subvert Roe v. Wade. Its a pit stop to banning contraception completely.

Thread: Wisconsin passes abortion ban

Thread Tools

Wisconsin passes abortion ban

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads