Texas Senate panel OKs abortion sonogram bill

How does forcing vaginal sonograms on an already distressed patient population equate to a social welfare item? Public funding for abortions would be a far better example of a Keynesian policy implementation.

 

If you look at the research I posted before, sonograms can actually be a positive thing for most women. It brings them a measure of relief and closure. If it also dissuades abortion, then so much the better.

that said, for a neo-Keynesian, as long as we are spending money on the people, it must be good for the economy. in fact, as long as we are spending. The government could be funding kids digging holes in the ground, and most neo-Keynesians would see that as "stimulus" and "jolly good." (well, at least from an economic standpoint.)

So I find it funny how some people who I know have that economic liberal/Keynesian bent (as quite a few in this forum do) have all of a sudden become fiscal conservatives bent on saving every penny of the state's coffers faced with an item they don't like. I guess it's true that ideology warps all ways.

 

Except that the government isn't funding these sonograms, so it kind of blows up your whole argument.

 

Actually, it blows up theirs, since I was trying to underscore the possible hypocrisy of some that announced that this program would be a "waste of taxpayer dollars". If there's no taxpayer dollars involved---well then.

Do you have a link that highlights this?

 

Huh? Why would they need a sonogram, it would not be necessary as the baby/babies are being aborted... it is not needed at all, and simply makes it more difficult for a woman to have an abortion, and more expensive.... that is common sense.

 

1) The fact that women who requested sonograms had a positive experience has no bearing whatsoever on whether women who don't want a vaginal sonogram done to them would have a positive experience if said procedure were forced on them.
2) I also dispute your claim that dissuading abortions promotes social welfare. Increasing access to abortion services, on the other hand, seems to produce positive results.

I'm not sure what your definition of "neo-Keynesian" is, but I seriously doubt that many people, left-leaning or otherwise, would say that spending money on digging holes randomly in the ground is better than, say, digging holes in the ground to lay a foundation for a new school building. The key qualifier in your argument is "on the people," which basically calls back to the question of what constitutes a "social welfare" program. In any case, you have not supported your claim that forcing women to undergo invasive vaginal sonograms is a social service.

 

Best post in the the thread... just like gun control.... you have a set of people that do not like that something is legal (guns/abortion) and are willing to do anything to make it more difficult and limit it.... but masquerade behind some tangent reason.... when really it is that they don't like the law.

 

So now we're talking about possible hypocrisy? I guess that's better than telling women, "Don't worry, this is for your own good," as doctors stick probes up their vaginas against their will.

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean that neither abortion nor guns should be regulated in any way. I think it can be reasonably argued that people who own/carry guns should have some degree of qualification, just as someone who performs abortions should be qualified.

 

I'm not sure who you're referring to there, but it DOES waste taxpayer dollars. There's always a cost of implementation and compliance verification. None of that goes to helping anyone - it just is a cost associated with ensuring that doctors are actually performing the sonograms.

 

1-Yes, but we will never know without impact studies of state sonogram policies. You (and a lot of other people in this thread) are assuming that this is a violation of privacy and a terrible thing and etc., well, I bring scientific evidence that a majority of women would have a positive experience. Yes, anything beyond that is projecting our assumptions on the 30% or so of women who choose not to get sonograms. I think it will reduce abortions for this group without being overly negative, but if impact studies prove me wrong, then I will disavow this position. However, we simply do not know at this point, and cannot assume that this is a "terrible incursion of privacy meant to traumatize women." When done right, it IS a social service---enlightening, providing education, closure, and (hopefully) dissuading what I and many others regard as a negative thing.

2-Well, then we agree to disagree. I think providing disincentives to abortion is a good thing, since to me abortion is a bad thing that produces negative externalities. If however, you believe it is a positive thing, that is to your discretion. You may value current humans more, and argue a slew of children adds no good to this world. I am a firm believer in giving every life a chance.
we disagree. hoorah.

 

I like the law---abortion should be legal. Criminalization should be off the table, since it doesn't solve anything (see: drugs, alcohol etc.)

However, the government should work to disincentivize these activities. We live in a world that I always amusingly infer most people assume they have "free will". This is largely an illusion. The government often works to give incentives for good behavior and disincentives for bad behavior and it works, period.

The best example I have, though this is verging straight off topic and I apologize for that, is the American diet---the epitome of "GOVMENT GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY GREASY CHEESEBURGER." The ultimate expression of individual freedom---except what if I told you the government was the most powerful force that incentivizes you to smush garbage down your mouth? How many of you would buy a hamburger if it was $20? $40? USDA subsidies artificially push the price of meat and corn sweetener down to the point where the junk that constitutes a large part of the American diet becomes the most palatable option. The government, lobbied by companies like Archer Daniels (possibly the most subsidized company of all time), pulls so much money into making you eat the way you eat right now.

so chew on that next time you're eating salty fries, and burgers. You're a pawn of corporate rent-seeking, economic incentive-gearing government.

*end of digression*

 

Absolutely, but we need to be intellectually honest. Too many people (liberal and conservative) like to hide behind "other reasons". For example Northside Storm claiming that sonograms can be a positive experience. So can giving those women a spa treatment, or any number of other things. The purpose of the bill is to place further restrictions on abortions and make it more difficult to have an abortion, END OF STORY. To spout BS about it being "positive" or not that expensive is completely irrelevant.

 

I'll straight out say that I like that it is a positive disincentive. As an economist, I am intrigued by this possibility.

Abortion is a bad thing to me. It may be a good thing to you. I am curious why, but you may tell me.

However, people in this thread seem to think it is a terrible invasion of privacy and traumatizing for most women. Not so, the science concludes. Done the right way, it is a social service that enlightens and educates, and for some, dissuades.

 

Trauma to the mother and family, possible medical complications, a certain tendency towards eliminating a certain type of baby (whatever is regarded as abnormal at the time) and the missed opportunity of what could have been a wonderful human life.

A friend of mine once confessed his mother was thinking of aborting him. But she "gave him a chance". Now he's at one of the top universities in the world.

For every horror story of "crack babies" and every cold thesis that abortion reduces crime, I believe we are missing out on the positive side of it all.

 

Lolwut?

Have you ever haz cheezeburger? I think the main reason people like them MIGHT just be cuz them thangs is really good. You ever seen how much French Fries they consume in Europe? And they drown them in mayonnaise. MAYONNAISE! And they are everywhere.

So you criticize the American diet and the consumption of cheezeburgers and fries as being the fault of government subsidies? Call everyone pawns for giving in to such incentives and subsidy driven economics and lifestyle dictation? Then suggest this time they should be supporting government "incentives" because it's for greater good? This bill isn't an incentive. It's a dictation.

Then, you go on to say that we should embrace the government's "incentives" in this case because THIS time you think it's for the greater good?

The initiative of this bill is offensive to people who expect a certain amount of freedom from being forced to do something pushed by a certain side's political agenda, regardless the veil of claimed goals or potential social benefit. Further, this is being passed by legislature under a guy who initiated a near mandatory vaccination program "for the greater good" only for us to find that his cronies and supporters would be the ones benefitting financially. Trust has been breached.

I can't tell which direction you're going with this other than "you think it's for the greater good." Just say that. You will have the same amount of detractors and will have saved much effort.

 

Hyperbole in response to more judgmental BS from pro-lifers.

At the same time, it's hilarious that pro-lifers focus so much anger on something that is often nothing more than a clump of cells and in cases where it is further developed still does not satisfy many requirement of being a person.

Pro-lifers, worry about more important things than potential people and you might do something useful in this world.