If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Republican lawmakers in New Mexico want to make rape victims felons if they do not carry their pregnancies to term, because they're "tampering with evidence" that can be used at a sexual assault trial   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 291
    More: Asinine, New Mexico, Republican, human beings, Equal Pay Act, Paycheck Fairness Act, Priebus tried, reauthorization, shiny objects  
•       •       •

3445 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jan 2013 at 1:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



291 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 12:46:59 PM
They can get the evidence they need from an aborted fetus as well. Why do Republicans care so much (or little) about rape?
 
2013-01-24 12:48:39 PM
Keep raping that chicken, assholes.
 
2013-01-24 12:51:52 PM

Demetrius: Keep raping that chicken, assholes.


Will the chicken become a felon if it doesn't carry its egg to term?
 
2013-01-24 12:55:04 PM

GiantRex: Demetrius: Keep raping that chicken, assholes.

Will the chicken become a felon if it doesn't carry its egg to term?


No. But if the egg is unfertilized, the chicken better watch out.
 
2013-01-24 12:58:00 PM
A female lawmaker made this bill?

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-24 01:01:43 PM
Please continue GOP. Please.
 
2013-01-24 01:03:26 PM
UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.
 
2013-01-24 01:05:31 PM

cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.


FTFA:

"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.
 
2013-01-24 01:06:18 PM

cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crimthethe


Then maybe they should withdraw the bill until they can rewrite it to reflect that.
 
2013-01-24 01:06:29 PM
Why won't democrats stop pointing out that republicans can't shut up about rape?
 
2013-01-24 01:08:30 PM

gilgigamesh: cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

FTFA:

"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.


No one in their right mind would consider a rape victim getting an abortion as an intent to destroy evidence
 
2013-01-24 01:09:51 PM
I would make so much money opening up a roller coaster with heavy lateral g-forces in a state that obsesses about banning abortions.
 
2013-01-24 01:11:23 PM
Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R) has never actually ever had sex before. It's fact.
 
2013-01-24 01:11:52 PM

cman: gilgigamesh: cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

FTFA:

"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

No one in their right mind would consider a rape victim getting an abortion as an intent to destroy evidence


Who can procure an abortion except the mother?

Its a poorly written bill.
 
2013-01-24 01:12:27 PM

cman: No one in their right mind would consider a rape victim getting an abortion as an intent to destroy evidence


That's an enormous qualifier you got there.
 
2013-01-24 01:16:40 PM
As mind-numbingly stupid as this bill may be, I have to agree with cman, proving intent for a woman who gets an abortion is going to limit the number of actual victims from being charged for getting an abortion. I think the intent is much more a father impregnating his daughter and then pressuring her to get an abortion against her will.

That being said, you can get the evidence from an aborted fetus, but I'm a firm believer in the maxim "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity." I think the person who wrote it meant well, and is merely stupid.
 
2013-01-24 01:19:50 PM

cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.


My response to this.
 
2013-01-24 01:23:09 PM

nmrsnr: As mind-numbingly stupid as this bill may be, I have to agree with cman, proving intent for a woman who gets an abortion is going to limit the number of actual victims from being charged for getting an abortion. I think the intent is much more a father impregnating his daughter and then pressuring her to get an abortion against her will.

That being said, you can get the evidence from an aborted fetus, but I'm a firm believer in the maxim "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity." I think the person who wrote it meant well, and is merely stupid.


It is a fair argument.  But in the current environment I really want to conclude it's deliberately vague so it can be abused.  Unfortunately we can't really know the true intent.  So let's hope they tighten up the language so enforcement applies to the appropriate parties.
 
2013-01-24 01:24:21 PM
I was told that rape would not result in pregnancy!

I guess those women who don't get pregnant are just SOL in terms of proving it happened.
 
2013-01-24 01:25:36 PM

cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.


Yes, because as we know, abortions, being medical procedures, have no paper work or anything that could provide said evidence.
 
2013-01-24 01:25:52 PM

nmrsnr: As mind-numbingly stupid as this bill may be, I have to agree with cman, proving intent for a woman who gets an abortion is going to limit the number of actual victims from being charged for getting an abortion. I think the intent is much more a father impregnating his daughter and then pressuring her to get an abortion against her will.

That being said, you can get the evidence from an aborted fetus, but I'm a firm believer in the maxim "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity." I think the person who wrote it meant well, and is merely stupid.


I'm inclined to agree with you. It sounds like the true intent here is to prevent rapists from forcing (or at least facilitating) an abortion to cover up their crime. But honestly, as has been said an aborted fetus itself could just as well be evidence.

Good question maybe someone can answer: When you get an abortion, to whom is that fact required to be reported to?
 
2013-01-24 01:26:45 PM

nmrsnr: As mind-numbingly stupid as this bill may be, I have to agree with cman, proving intent for a woman who gets an abortion is going to limit the number of actual victims from being charged for getting an abortion.


However, this risks (among other problems) a chilling effect, reducing the number of doctors willing to perform abortions over fears of being prosecuted for "facilitating".
 
2013-01-24 01:28:00 PM

nekom: Good question maybe someone can answer: When you get an abortion, to whom is that fact required to be reported to?


Varies by state if I'm not mistaken.
 
2013-01-24 01:28:49 PM

gilgigamesh: cman: gilgigamesh: cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

FTFA:

"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

No one in their right mind would consider a rape victim getting an abortion as an intent to destroy evidence

Who can procure an abortion except the mother?

Its a poorly written bill.


Poorly written, but I would think the intent is the key.  A rape victim who gets an abortion because she doesn't want to carry a baby to term would not appear to be in violation.  She has no intent to destroy the evidence.  If, say, an adult male is sexually abusing a minor who then gets pregnant and he coerces her into getting an abortion to prevent the abuse from being discovered, then he (presumably not she, if she is coerced) is guilty of the felony.  I agree it's a poorly written bill, no doubt, but I don't think it's as awful as people make it out to be.  Frankly if you have a scenario where an abortion is being coerced for that purpose, I don't see why you couldn't craft an obstruction of justice charge the way you would with destruction of any other evidence of a crime.
 
2013-01-24 01:29:00 PM

nekom: I'm inclined to agree with you. It sounds like the true intent here is to prevent rapists from forcing (or at least facilitating) an abortion to cover up their crime. But honestly, as has been said an aborted fetus itself could just as well be evidence.


They dont save aborted fetuses unless if it is used for some sort of research.

Good question maybe someone can answer: When you get an abortion, to whom is that fact required to be reported to?

No one, usually. Some states require parental consent, and that is about as high as it goes.
 
2013-01-24 01:29:09 PM
Read the actual bill, this has nothing to do with keeping women safe.

AN ACT
RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING PROCURING OF AN ABORTION
AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL
PENETRATION OR INCEST.


It's also been amended, already.
 
2013-01-24 01:29:16 PM

abb3w: nmrsnr: As mind-numbingly stupid as this bill may be, I have to agree with cman, proving intent for a woman who gets an abortion is going to limit the number of actual victims from being charged for getting an abortion.

However, this risks (among other problems) a chilling effect, reducing the number of doctors willing to perform abortions over fears of being prosecuted for "facilitating".


Begs the question, is abortion available in New Mexico?
 
2013-01-24 01:29:41 PM

nmrsnr: That being said, you can get the evidence from an aborted fetus, but I'm a firm believer in the maxim "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity."


Yes, but we're talking about Republicans here, in which case it best to assume both.
 
2013-01-24 01:29:46 PM

impaler: cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

Yes, because as we know, abortions, being medical procedures, have no paper work or anything that could provide said evidence.


Where are you going to get the DNA from the fetus to establish paternity of the rapist if you destroy the tissue from the abortion?  Certainly not from the paperwork.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 01:31:10 PM
cman:

No one in their right mind would consider a rape victim getting an abortion as an intent to destroy evidence

So we aren't talking Republicans here?
 
2013-01-24 01:32:07 PM

Nabb1: impaler: cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

Yes, because as we know, abortions, being medical procedures, have no paper work or anything that could provide said evidence.

Where are you going to get the DNA from the fetus to establish paternity of the rapist if you destroy the tissue from the abortion?  Certainly not from the paperwork.


I doubt every cell is destroyed.
 
2013-01-24 01:33:46 PM

simplicimus: Nabb1: impaler: cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

Yes, because as we know, abortions, being medical procedures, have no paper work or anything that could provide said evidence.

Where are you going to get the DNA from the fetus to establish paternity of the rapist if you destroy the tissue from the abortion?  Certainly not from the paperwork.

I doubt every cell is destroyed.


As far as I know, all waste from medical procedures has to be destroyed unless it is being saved for research or some other valid reason.  And if it's just mess left over after the procedure that wasn't cleaned up... Ew.  Someone call the health inspector.  That's not sanitary.
 
2013-01-24 01:35:14 PM

abb3w: nmrsnr: As mind-numbingly stupid as this bill may be, I have to agree with cman, proving intent for a woman who gets an abortion is going to limit the number of actual victims from being charged for getting an abortion.

However, this risks (among other problems) a chilling effect, reducing the number of doctors willing to perform abortions over fears of being prosecuted for "facilitating".


Good point.  It may not be feasible to prosecute the mother, but this law sure as shiat would have a chilling effect for a doctor.
 
2013-01-24 01:36:29 PM

Nabb1: I agree it's a poorly written bill, no doubt, but I don't think it's as awful as people make it out to be.


Poorly written bills are inherently awful when they leave open the possibility, intentionally or unintentionally, of a rape victim being prosecuted for having an abortion.

Nabb1: impaler: cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

Yes, because as we know, abortions, being medical procedures, have no paper work or anything that could provide said evidence.

Where are you going to get the DNA from the fetus to establish paternity of the rapist if you destroy the tissue from the abortion?  Certainly not from the paperwork.


...if only there was some surgical method of removing large amounts of cells from the victim that we can be certain as having the genetic material of the rapist present.
 
2013-01-24 01:37:01 PM

Nabb1: simplicimus: Nabb1: impaler: cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

Yes, because as we know, abortions, being medical procedures, have no paper work or anything that could provide said evidence.

Where are you going to get the DNA from the fetus to establish paternity of the rapist if you destroy the tissue from the abortion?  Certainly not from the paperwork.

I doubt every cell is destroyed.

As far as I know, all waste from medical procedures has to be destroyed unless it is being saved for research or some other valid reason.  And if it's just mess left over after the procedure that wasn't cleaned up... Ew.  Someone call the health inspector.  That's not sanitary.


I think a rape investigation would be a valid reason. But, if New Mexico is like Texas, getting DNA results will take 5 years and probably be wrong.
 
2013-01-24 01:37:16 PM

cman:
No one, usually. Some states require parental consent, and that is about as high as it goes.


Well that may be a better way to tackle the problem, to the extent that it even is a problem. Requiring abortions to be reported to law enforcement might not be a terrible idea. Or at least require them to be reported if there is any suspicion whatsoever that they may be involved in the concealment of a crime. Well, actually that may already be the case. Aren't doctors required to report any suspected criminal activity to the police as it is?
 
2013-01-24 01:38:30 PM

simplicimus: I think a rape investigation would be a valid reason. But, if New Mexico is like Texas, getting DNA results will take 5 years and probably be wrong.


If only there was also some way of extracting the semen of the attacker from the victim early in the process. They could sell kits, and be one of the main ways to prove rape.
 
2013-01-24 01:40:05 PM

Bloody William: Nabb1: I agree it's a poorly written bill, no doubt, but I don't think it's as awful as people make it out to be.

Poorly written bills are inherently awful when they leave open the possibility, intentionally or unintentionally, of a rape victim being prosecuted for having an abortion.

Nabb1: impaler: cman: UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. --Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

Yes, because as we know, abortions, being medical procedures, have no paper work or anything that could provide said evidence.

Where are you going to get the DNA from the fetus to establish paternity of the rapist if you destroy the tissue from the abortion?  Certainly not from the paperwork.

...if only there was some surgical method of removing large amounts of cells from the victim that we can be certain as having the genetic material of the rapist present.


You mean a rape kit?  Well, I would assume that would be done long before the abortion, hence no intent to destroy evidence, ergo no crime at all.  What else do you mean?
 
2013-01-24 01:41:01 PM

gilgigamesh: abb3w: nmrsnr: As mind-numbingly stupid as this bill may be, I have to agree with cman, proving intent for a woman who gets an abortion is going to limit the number of actual victims from being charged for getting an abortion.

However, this risks (among other problems) a chilling effect, reducing the number of doctors willing to perform abortions over fears of being prosecuted for "facilitating".

Good point.  It may not be feasible to prosecute the mother, but this law sure as shiat would have a chilling effect for a doctor.


And this is a fair concern, and the law should definitely not pass as written, but the anger of "ZOMG they want to make women felons for getting abortions" is in this case, I think, unwarranted.
 
2013-01-24 01:41:41 PM

Bloody William: simplicimus: I think a rape investigation would be a valid reason. But, if New Mexico is like Texas, getting DNA results will take 5 years and probably be wrong.

If only there was also some way of extracting the semen of the attacker from the victim early in the process. They could sell kits, and be one of the main ways to prove rape.


You do realize that rape kits are totally useless after a very short window, certainly long before any rape victim would be aware she is pregnant?  Are you suggesting doing a rape kit two months after the rape or something?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 01:42:12 PM
Nabb1:

Poorly written, but I would think the intent is the key.  A rape victim who gets an abortion because she doesn't want to carry a baby to term would not appear to be in violation.  She has no intent to destroy the evidence.  If, say, an adult male is sexually abusing a minor who then gets pregnant and he coerces her into getting an abortion to prevent the abuse from being discovered, then he (presumably not she, if she is coerced) is guilty of the felony.  I agree it's a poorly written bill, no doubt, but I don't think it's as awful as people make it out to be.  Frankly if you have a scenario where an abortion is being coerced for that purpose, I don't see why you couldn't craft an obstruction of justice charge the way you would with destruction of any other evidence of a crime.

I don't think intent works like that.  If a woman terminates a pregnancy intentionally, as opposed to a miscarriage, then there is intent.
 
2013-01-24 01:42:31 PM

impaler: nmrsnr: That being said, you can get the evidence from an aborted fetus, but I'm a firm believer in the maxim "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity."

Yes, but we're talking about Republicans here, in which case it best to assume both.


Good point.
 
2013-01-24 01:42:51 PM

Bloody William: simplicimus: I think a rape investigation would be a valid reason. But, if New Mexico is like Texas, getting DNA results will take 5 years and probably be wrong.

If only there was also some way of extracting the semen of the attacker from the victim early in the process. They could sell kits, and be one of the main ways to prove rape.


Sure, kits exist. However, the real world doesn't work like TV. It takes a long time to process a rape kit, not 20 minutes. And it involves lots of humans in the process, increasing the probability of error.
 
2013-01-24 01:45:59 PM

vpb: Nabb1:

Poorly written, but I would think the intent is the key.  A rape victim who gets an abortion because she doesn't want to carry a baby to term would not appear to be in violation.  She has no intent to destroy the evidence.  If, say, an adult male is sexually abusing a minor who then gets pregnant and he coerces her into getting an abortion to prevent the abuse from being discovered, then he (presumably not she, if she is coerced) is guilty of the felony.  I agree it's a poorly written bill, no doubt, but I don't think it's as awful as people make it out to be.  Frankly if you have a scenario where an abortion is being coerced for that purpose, I don't see why you couldn't craft an obstruction of justice charge the way you would with destruction of any other evidence of a crime.

I don't think intent works like that.  If a woman terminates a pregnancy intentionally, as opposed to a miscarriage, then there is intent.


The abortion is intentional, as in, one intends to terminate the pregnancy.  But if the intent is to destroy evidence, then that is a different reason.  Let's say you burn a bunch of documents.  You intend to do it.  Nothing wrong.  Let's say those documents implicate you in a crime and you are getting rid of evidence.  Different thing altogether.  Has anyone but me seen the movie "Eastern Promises"?  The whole premise of that movie was basically a Russian mobster trying to find and kill a baby that a girl he was raping gave birth to so no one could do the paternity test.
 
2013-01-24 01:47:53 PM
UPDATE: Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

THEN YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG
 
2013-01-24 01:48:47 PM
Holy farking christ on a cracker. When will the GOP anuses give this rape shiat up? Do the republican leaders allow this to happen and support it or is it just the far right wing whack jobs?
 
2013-01-24 01:49:17 PM
[brazzerschicken.jpg]
 
2013-01-24 01:50:23 PM

Pincy: UPDATE: Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

THEN YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG


How, exactly, are they "doing it wrong"?
 
2013-01-24 01:50:48 PM
Lunatics, the lot of them.
 
2013-01-24 01:51:20 PM
I can see why Republicans keep the rape topic alive. The 2012 voters clearly were on their side of the issue.

Please proceed, GOP
 
Displayed 50 of 291 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report