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.

(Fox News)   That New Mexico Republican who wanted to make rape victims felons if they had an abortion would like you to know she's interested in "clarifying" her language   (foxnews.com) divider line 392
    More: Followup, New Mexico Republican, New Mexico, rape victim, state legislature, abortions, felony, legislators, Carlsbad  
•       •       •

12789 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 11:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 12:14:54 PM  

PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.


There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says that 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.

Tampering with evidence is a specific intent crime that requires an intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.  If the victim seeks an abortion without the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another, it would not be considered tampering with evidence.

 .
 
2013-01-25 12:15:39 PM  

Weaver95: LaraAmber: Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims.  being forced to carry the product of rape full term has to be pretty damaging, not just mentally but financially.  look - I get the 'whole life is sacred' thing, I really do.  But here's the deal....if you want to force a woman to carry a rape baby full term, then do the following:

1. pay the rape victims medical costs.  ALL of 'em.  from psych counseling to pre-natal care up through medical expenses incurred during and immediately after giving birth.
2. help put the kid up for adoption, even if the kid is 'special needs' or has medical issues.  you wanted 'em born, you pay for 'em.
3. make it a law that rape victims *cannot* be fired under any circumstances while carrying the rape baby to term, oh and you are going to give their significant other (or person they designate) the same level of protection.  they'll need support, and you are going to damn well make sure they get it.
4. if they decide to keep the rape baby, then you pay the woman a stipend over and above food stamps that you WILL make sure she gets...this was about as unplanned a pregnancy as unplanned can get and you WILL make sure to help her with all her unexpected/unplanned for expenses during her first year with her new child.
5. her rapist pays child support.  yes, I realize that's probably something like...20 cents or something...but it's the thought that counts.

do ALL of the above, and i'll believe you give a damn about the rape victim.  Don't do it, or weasel dick your way out of it, and I'll know you're a religious moron who hasn't thought the issue through.

Those are interesting ideas, but now you've provided a financial incentive for a woman to claim rape over another cause of her pregnancy. Already women's claims of rape are considered suspect from day one unless she shows up in the ER on the brink of death. Even if no woman ever falsely claimed rape to get this help ...


And where are we going to get the money to fund and enforce this little project?

Reading comprehension: no one is forcing anyone to have a baby. This is an attempt at criminalizing a behavior if the intent is to hide/damage evidence during its commission. I do agree on some of the finer points like making babby daddy pay support (though who would want to have contact with someone who had previously attacked you), provide assistance in the adoptive process should the victim carry to full term, or offer tax breaks/ renumerative benefits for those who choose to carry to full term. If paying the costs of birthing is the deciding factor of whether to keep or not- maybe having the abortion would be preferable in this circumstance as childcare is rift with endless expenses- each begging the question of whether an abortion have been a better decision.
 
2013-01-25 12:17:08 PM  

Weaver95: david_gaithersburg: .
I'm not a so-called-progressive, so chances are I'm not an attorney. It was a draft bill, the language is being revised. Even after the revision there is still fake outrage.

If a conservative told you the sky was blue you would begin foaming at the mouth.

i'm pretty sure the outrage is real.  the GOP has been pretty consistent with their 'pro-rape' message.  what I can't figure is how the GOP decided this was going to help them take back Congress.  the rest of the country is looking at the Republican party in horror and disgust.


Don't pick on Gaithersburg. He's above average intelligence in Florida.
 
2013-01-25 12:17:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says that 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.

Tampering with evidence is a specific intent crime that requires an intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.  If the victim seeks an abortion without the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another, it would not be considered tampering with evidence.

 .


How is that not already illegal?
 
2013-01-25 12:17:39 PM  
a57.foxnews.com


"Why, why, why, WHY is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to f*ck in the first place, huh?" - George Carlin
 
2013-01-25 12:22:09 PM  

ccundiff: CheekyMonkey: DGS: david_gaithersburg: So-called-progressives, doing their part to keep down the national reading level.

What does this even mean?

What does anything david_gaithersburg say ever mean?

\I'll give you a hint: derp
\\there's a reason he's on my ignore list
\\\I got tired of reading his unfunny, unintelligent troll comments

See, I haven't figured him out. Is he a troll? If he is, he is the worst ever. It is easier to believe that he actually believes what he says (and believes that what he says makes sense) than to believe that anyone is that bad of a troll.


After careful study, I believe there is an element of trolling. He may very well believe what he writes, but many of his comments are phrased to "tweak" the opposition. I'm not generally opposed to this, if it's done with humor, but his comments are utterly lacking in both humor and devoid of intelligent thought.
 
2013-01-25 12:22:19 PM  

Weaver95: Mugato: Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims. being forced to carry the product of rape full term has to be pretty damaging, not just mentally but financially.

I'm pro-choice (meaning I don't really care but I don't think a woman should be made to have a kid she doesn't want) but if you're a religious fanatic who believes that life begins when the guy nuts inside a woman and that all life is sacred (none of them believe that one), believing that a woman should carry a rape baby is at least internally consistent with their twisted viewpoint. It's not the kid's fault what the terms were under which he was conceived.

If this sounds like I'm supporting pro-life people, I'm not, I'm just saying forcing the woman to keep the rape baby is consistent with what they claim to believe. I hope that came across correctly.

sure, but it's not very logical.  you can't say 'all life is sacred' then turn around and do NOTHING to help that life grow and become meaningful.  you might as well give birth and then abandon the kid on a barren windswept mountain top.  that's also logically consistent with the pro-life view.


img.timeinc.net

Agrees

/pre-natal, you're fine
//post-natal, you're farkED
 
2013-01-25 12:22:32 PM  

Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims.  being forced to carry the product of rape full term has to be pretty damaging, not just mentally but financially.  look - I get the 'whole life is sacred' thing, I really do.  But here's the deal....if you want to force a woman to carry a rape baby full term, then do the following:

1. pay the rape victims medical costs.  ALL of 'em.  from psych counseling to pre-natal care up through medical expenses incurred during and immediately after giving birth.
2. help put the kid up for adoption, even if the kid is 'special needs' or has medical issues.  you wanted 'em born, you pay for 'em.
3. make it a law that rape victims *cannot* be fired under any circumstances while carrying the rape baby to term, oh and you are going to give their significant other (or person they designate) the same level of protection.  they'll need support, and you are going to damn well make sure they get it.
4. if they decide to keep the rape baby, then you pay the woman a stipend over and above food stamps that you WILL make sure she gets...this was about as unplanned a pregnancy as unplanned can get and you WILL make sure to help her with all her unexpected/unplanned for expenses during her first year with her new child.
5. her rapist pays child support.  yes, I realize that's probably something like...20 cents or something...but it's the thought that counts.

do ALL of the above, and i'll believe you give a damn about the rape victim.  Don't do it, or weasel dick your way out of it, and I'll know you're a religious moron who hasn't thought the issue through.


The smartest approach I've heard in a long time.
 
2013-01-25 12:22:53 PM  
spells her name with the same dexterity used to create the bill.
Kathryn = ok
Catherine = ok
Cathrynn = made up like the reasoning behind my new bill
 
2013-01-25 12:26:54 PM  
GOP: "We must protect the chance of a fetus to be born... but once said fetus is born and she gets raped, then tough shiat".
 
2013-01-25 12:29:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: The bill as written would only apply to someone who acts with the specific intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.


But the intent of the law is to prevent an abortion, when having an abortion does not destroy any DNA evidence. If it was really about preserving evidence, then they'd just make a law that requires genetic samples of all aborted tissue to be preserved for a reasonable amount of time.
 
2013-01-25 12:30:35 PM  

GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00: Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.

In all fairness I'm sure it was written by some organization with the word "family" in its name.

Actually, I'd bet ALEC wrote it.


Well, ALEC is the Koch Family Legislative Foundation.
 
2013-01-25 12:30:47 PM  

coco ebert: SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says that 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.

Tampering with evidence is a specific intent crime that requires an intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.  If the victim seeks an abortion without the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another, it would not be considered tampering with evidence.

 .

How is that not already illegal?


It probably is already illegal under existing law.  I'm not arguing for or against the bill.  I'm arguing against the attempt to demonize the lawmaker who proposed the bill and by extension, the entire GOP, by dishonestly mischaracterizing what the bill does.
 
2013-01-25 12:33:05 PM  
Prepare for the sudden influx of murder-babies!

blog.zap2it.com
 
2013-01-25 12:33:34 PM  

trappedspirit: It clearly says "...with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime..."

There is a lot of manufactured rage in here over ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills. I understand being stupid is sometimes frustrating and makes you angry, but...get over it


This might help relieve some of your derp:
Just one day after quietly introducing a whopper of a bill that would categorize abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest as "tampering with evidence," New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn N. Brown found herself doing some swift damage control.

As it still currently appears on the New Mexico Legislature's page, Bill HB206 is blazingly, insanely straightforward. It explains that "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" and states "whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished" with varying degrees of felony charges. Isn't it sweet when politicians try to defend the cause of "life" by categorizing fetuses as "evidence"? As one skeptic pondered Thursday, "So I assume, as evidence, the court will be holding the fetus in a locker and destroying it after trial?"

But Brown's clever ruse to redefine a woman's constitutional right as criminal tampering didn't go over very well, and as the bill made national headlines Thursday, Brown not so coincidentally removed her contact information from her legislature page. But her personal Web page, which greets visitors with a photo from the governor's prayer breakfast, tells a tale of somebody who's been trying to tweak the narrative. There's a record of two now-deleted posts entered on Thursday evening, followed by a statement from Brown that reads, "This is the bill that I will introduce that protects women and girls from incest and other sex crimes: It makes it clear that the mother of the fetus would never be charged. This bill ensures the prosecution of the offender and protection of the victim."

In the bill's newly gussied up language, it specifies that "a person who commits sexual penetration or incest and who procures an abortion of a fetus resulting from the crime with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime is guilty of tampering with evidence, prohibiting prosecution of the mother of the fetus ... In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged." So if you're a rapist and you try to get your victim to have an abortion, you're in trouble. Because that happens every day. Brown's apparent interest in protecting women should be taken within the context of her other pursuits, however, like serving on the board of Carlsbad's Right to Life chapter, and posting images from the Life Issues Institute on her Facebook page. The Institute describes its mission as "assuring ... equal protection under the law for all living humans from the beginning of their biological life at fertilization."

In a Thursday feature that ran in the Carlsbad Current-Argus, Brown, an experienced attorney, told Milan Simonich that the bill had been drafted too quickly and an "error" had caused it to be introduced before it was ready. "I missed this one," she explained. Albuquerque Rep. Nate Gentry supported Brown's assertion, adding, "She's horrified."

What a perfectly apt word. "Horrified" is exactly how one should feel about Brown's sneaky, cruel and desperately punitive-to-victims bill. Too bad she's horrified at being exposed for such a dumb, callous attempt to criminalize reproductive rights instead of at the idiotic obstacles continually thrown in the path of women seeking safe, legal abortions. But if you're looking for proof of the callousness of the antiabortion movement and the extreme lengths to which they'll go, you can at least give credit to Brown for providing the one thing she seems to care so very much about. Evidence.
 
2013-01-25 12:34:27 PM  
Lawyers and politicians love finding loopholes in the language of laws. Some make very good careers off of it. A law for something as narrow and rare as this needs to be equally narrow and precise in wording.
 
2013-01-25 12:35:58 PM  

SkinnyHead: coco ebert: SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says that 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.

Tampering with evidence is a specific intent crime that requires an intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.  If the victim seeks an abortion without the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another, it would not be considered tampering with evidence.

 .

How is that not already illegal?

It probably is already illegal under existing law.  I'm not arguing for or against the bill.  I'm arguing against the attempt to demonize the lawmaker who proposed the bill and by extension, the entire GOP, by dishonestly mischaracterizing what the bill does.


If it's already illegal, then what is the motivation behind proposing such a law? I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that she meant something else with the law originally and is now trying to backtrack.
 
2013-01-25 12:36:01 PM  
niftycraft.com
 
2013-01-25 12:36:47 PM  

Earpj: Andrew Wiggin:
pro lifers only care about a 'baby' until it's actually born.

That's how it seems to me. After birth, you're on your own. Don't you dare ask for help.


Well, duh. Didn't you know that babies come with bootstraps?
 
2013-01-25 12:37:06 PM  

Empty Matchbook: Weaver95: Mugato: Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims. being forced to carry the product of rape full term has to be pretty damaging, not just mentally but financially.

I'm pro-choice (meaning I don't really care but I don't think a woman should be made to have a kid she doesn't want) but if you're a religious fanatic who believes that life begins when the guy nuts inside a woman and that all life is sacred (none of them believe that one), believing that a woman should carry a rape baby is at least internally consistent with their twisted viewpoint. It's not the kid's fault what the terms were under which he was conceived.

If this sounds like I'm supporting pro-life people, I'm not, I'm just saying forcing the woman to keep the rape baby is consistent with what they claim to believe. I hope that came across correctly.

sure, but it's not very logical.  you can't say 'all life is sacred' then turn around and do NOTHING to help that life grow and become meaningful.  you might as well give birth and then abandon the kid on a barren windswept mountain top.  that's also logically consistent with the pro-life view.

[img.timeinc.net image 360x235]

Agrees

/pre-natal, you're fine
//post-natal, you're farkED

Your view of what a pro-lifer is a bit skewed. Pro-life is really about not bailing out on your responsibilities as a parent- not just before the child is born but for the entirety of its life. Being responsible does not mean waiting for hand-outs so in this aspect the pro-lifers seem a bit heartless. It's about bringing a life into the world, offering protection for that life that others would not value.

What pro-life is not about is taking responsibilty where you fail. You don't want a child or can't afford the expenses of caring for that life- fine. Put it off until you can.

I am pro-choice by the way. I would prefer that people think things through a little more when hopping in the sack though. People who believe "having a baby" will solve any of life's little problems should probably be mentally evaluated before being allowed to engage in any further contact with the opposite sex.
 
2013-01-25 12:39:02 PM  

KrispyKritter: Smelly Pirate Hooker: It's what I've come to expect from the Legitimate Rape Party.

So, carry on, assholes. I like it when you make public statements that make it absolutely clear nobody with a brain should vote for you. Makes it easier to remember at election time.

Another entry for my Assholish Things Republicans Have Said and Who Said Them spreadsheet.

you have a great idea right there, and one that is long overdue. a website and maybe a book of collected over the top, OMG i can't believe they just said that direct quotes from the lips of the mentally deficient in office. that web site and book should be fully exploited weeks before elections take place. people are busy; people have short memories. to remind voters of what they are truly, honestly dealing with before they cast a vote would be doing this country a great service.


They exist, but they're poorly designed. A spreadsheet is easier to read and update.
 
2013-01-25 12:39:40 PM  

SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says that 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.

Tampering with evidence is a specific intent crime that requires an intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.  If the victim seeks an abortion without the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another, it would not be considered tampering with evidence.

 .


So what evidence is being tampered with?
 
2013-01-25 12:40:12 PM  

SkinnyHead: It probably is already illegal under existing law. I'm not arguing for or against the bill. I'm arguing against the attempt to demonize the lawmaker who proposed the bill and by extension, the entire GOP, by dishonestly mischaracterizing what the bill does.


If that's what upsets you so, then here's an idea: stop advocating legislation that limits the rights of rape victims or even threatens them with criminal prosecution. Doesn't seem too difficult, and yet it seems to be for elected members one major political party.
 
2013-01-25 12:40:50 PM  

Weaver95: I would rather occasionally let someone game the system than leave a rape victim with nowhere to turn and no options.


Echoes of Blackstone.

Someday I will buy you a beer. Or whatever it is you drink.
 
2013-01-25 12:42:08 PM  

unlikely: Weaver95: I would rather occasionally let someone game the system than leave a rape victim with nowhere to turn and no options.

Echoes of Blackstone.

Someday I will buy you a beer. Or whatever it is you drink.


I am the reason the rum is gone.
 
2013-01-25 12:43:38 PM  
If she were consistent with her beliefs she wouldn't back down from her original position. If you really believe that abortion is murder, it's perfectly reasonable and consistent to claim that having been impregnated by a horrendous act of violence, doesn't give you the right to commit the murder of an innocent third person (the human being inside you).
 
2013-01-25 12:48:09 PM  
This is just another example of a crime that almost never happens--like voter fraud--that repubs suddenly decide requires legal remedy. The fact that the side effects of the proposed solution--voter suppression in the case of voter ID laws or, in this case, criminalization of the rape victim -- massively outweigh the proposed benefits leads to the suspicion that there is some ulterior motive involved. Such indeed was the case in the voter fraud issue, as evidenced by Mike Turzai's bragging about how voter ID laws would deliver the state for Romney. Can we be faulted for assuming that a law that, on the face of it, supports the rapist's right to continue to mistreat his victim constitutes a "pro-rape" attitude on the part of the repubs? In the final analysis. only women get abortions. If abortion is a crime, every woman is a potential criminal and deserves whatever unpleasantness befalls her, just as every Latino is a potential illegal alien and every black in a hoodie is a potential mugger. Right, repubs?
 
2013-01-25 12:48:31 PM  

Trayal: SkinnyHead: The bill as written would only apply to someone who acts with the specific intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.

But the intent of the law is to prevent an abortion, when having an abortion does not destroy any DNA evidence. If it was really about preserving evidence, then they'd just make a law that requires genetic samples of all aborted tissue to be preserved for a reasonable amount of time.


It is to prevent an abortion when the intent of the abortion is to cover up a sex offense.  Suppose Uncle Chester impregnates an underage family member.  If the baby is born, that baby will haunt Chester as living proof of the crime for as long as the baby lives.  If Chester coerces the victim to abort the baby to avoid that possibility, then Chester has compounded his crime and deserves additional punishment.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:27 PM  
It's almost as if she encountered a group of people that were not republicans.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:33 PM  

Mugato: So it's not just the GOP men who are obsessed with rape. That's good to know. The GOP are equal opportunity rape-obsessed psychopaths.


yeah, but their women just do and say what the men tell them.
 
2013-01-25 12:51:02 PM  
As I posted yesterday, if  you want to reach Skinnyhead on this topic, first you have imagine that a fetus is a young citizen being imprisoned and held without due process in a woman's vagina
 
2013-01-25 12:51:17 PM  

clowncar on fire: Drewdad: Rapeublican.

Care to cite where republicans are pro-rape or has this become such a repeated lie around these parts that's its accepted as truth.

I'm not saying the GOP hasn't made a few boneheaded comments regarding the topic of rape but I'm having trouble finding a source where rape has specifically been mentioned as part of their agenda.


Rhetoric aside, I'll conced that the vast majority of republicans are not pro-rape. So for the love of god, stop sending representatives of your party to Congress who make statements or attempt to make law that minimalizes rape and the consequences thereof. The Republicans are very much the authors of their own misfortune in this.
 
2013-01-25 12:54:00 PM  
The bill's language states that the crime "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."

/thread over, you have to have intent to destroy the evidence, this would preclude the victim getting an abortion. Non story.
 
2013-01-25 12:55:11 PM  

cubic_spleen: Republicans hate abortion because every aborted baby is one that won't grow up to be a soldier who will die fighting overseas for corporate profits. That is all Republicans are about. And for the Republicans who are also hardcore conservative evangelical Christians (i.e., all of them), poor people dying in the pursuit of rich people's monetary gain is the only way for poor people to get to heaven.

/all Republicans are really like this. The ones that say otherwise are in denial, or lying.


You're not helping. Go away and left derp elsewhere.
 
2013-01-25 12:55:15 PM  

SkinnyHead: coco ebert: SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says that 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.

Tampering with evidence is a specific intent crime that requires an intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.  If the victim seeks an abortion without the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another, it would not be considered tampering with evidence.

 .

How is that not already illegal?

It probably is already illegal under existing law.  I'm not arguing for or against the bill.  I'm arguing against the attempt to demonize the lawmaker who proposed the bill and by extension, the entire GOP, by dishonestly mischaracterizing what the bill does.


Except if there is already a law on the books prohibiting "tampering with evidence" (btw, lovely to see them objectify the fetus that they claim is a person as "evidence"; real consistent there) than this bill serves no purpose UNLESS there was another targeted audience besides people who would be considered criminals (or alleged criminals, technically) under current law. If that is not the case, then the time this lawmaker spent drafting the bill is wasted taxpayer money and an attempt by Republicans at expanding government authority. Pretty hypocritical both because it goes against their core platform of smaller government and because they are attacking democrats for trying the same thing with gun legislation (e.g. we don't need new laws to regulate guns since we already have laws against murder).

So which is it? Waste of taxpayer money and a blatant hypocrisy -or- ulterior motive intended to expand the sphere of who is considered a criminal to victims of crimes who wish to limit the magnitude of negative consequences of being victimized. You can't have it any other way.
 
2013-01-25 12:56:42 PM  

Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims.  being forced to carry the product of rape full term has to be pretty damaging, not just mentally but financially.  look - I get the 'whole life is sacred' thing, I really do.  But here's the deal....if you want to force a woman to carry a rape baby full term, then do the following:

1. pay the rape victims medical costs.  ALL of 'em.  from psych counseling to pre-natal care up through medical expenses incurred during and immediately after giving birth.
2. help put the kid up for adoption, even if the kid is 'special needs' or has medical issues.  you wanted 'em born, you pay for 'em.
3. make it a law that rape victims *cannot* be fired under any circumstances while carrying the rape baby to term, oh and you are going to give their significant other (or person they designate) the same level of protection.  they'll need support, and you are going to damn well make sure they get it.
4. if they decide to keep the rape baby, then you pay the woman a stipend over and above food stamps that you WILL make sure she gets...this was about as unplanned a pregnancy as unplanned can get and you WILL make sure to help her with all her unexpected/unplanned for expenses during her first year with her new child.
5. her rapist pays child support.  yes, I realize that's probably something like...20 cents or something...but it's the thought that counts.

do ALL of the above, and i'll believe you give a damn about the rape victim.  Don't do it, or weasel dick your way out of it, and I'll know you're a religious moron who hasn't thought the issue through.


/Um ya, fark all that. That means WE the taxpayers are paying for a baby that isn't ours. not that we don't already, but how about making the guy who raped her pay. Make him work, and give the money to the girl and the kid. At least a portion to help / assist. Why should the taxpayers shoulder the whole burden?
 
2013-01-25 12:57:10 PM  
It's getting increasingly difficult to find wire hangers anymore. Probably a plot by the pro-life groups.
 
2013-01-25 12:58:43 PM  
Mugato: So it's not just the GOP men who are obsessed with rape. That's good to know. The GOP are equal opportunity rape-obsessed psychopaths.

I think there's a word for this. Women who support hardline Conservative policies. I can't quite think of it, though,
 
2013-01-25 12:58:45 PM  

browntimmy: Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.


It's been done already.
 
2013-01-25 12:59:44 PM  

Quinzy: jehovahs witness protection: This and the anti-gay shiat pisses me off. I'm one of the few pro choice, pro gay marriage, atheist conservatives out there. DAMMIT!

I am also.


second

/throw in pro gun and agnostic you got yourself a deal there brother
 
2013-01-25 01:00:27 PM  

Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims. ...


Many are motivated by fear. If they can convince themselves that bad things only happen to bad people, then they don't need to fear bad things. Consequently, anyone who has bad things happen to them must be bad as well, and that's how the universe is balanced.

(I have another theory: The world is incredibly complex, and the intellectually lazy amongst us may have a temptation to split things into a more simplistic black & white perspective. Anything that might support the notion that there are shades of gray is therefore black (or white, depending on the color they associate with "not me.") )
 
2013-01-25 01:00:54 PM  

Weaver95: 5. her rapist pays child support.  yes, I realize that's probably something like...20 cents or something...but it's the thought that counts.


You couldn't really have a rapist pay child support as it gives him some financial power over the victim, you would have to organize it so the government pays out regardless, and then can chase up the rapist if they can.
 
2013-01-25 01:01:03 PM  

SilentStrider: DRTFA, but is this an "I'm sorry you got offended" apology?


No so much that as a "no, of course we'd NEVER use the proposed law THAT way, even though, yes, I suppose technically we could and you oh-so-cynically accuse us of having that in mind" clarification.
 
2013-01-25 01:02:11 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Why should the taxpayers shoulder the whole burden?


Because the Republicans are the ones trying to have government shoved up the woman's vagina. If they want that, then guess what? Taxpayers are forced to go along for the ride. If you object to this as a taxpayer (probably the least enlightened reason to object to this, but a legitimate objection nonetheless), then you need to let Republicans know to keep government's hands away from vaginas.
 
2013-01-25 01:03:53 PM  

Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims.  being forced to carry the product of rape full term has to be pretty damaging, not just mentally but financially.  look - I get the 'whole life is sacred' thing, I really do.  But here's the deal....if you want to force a woman to carry a rape baby full term, then do the following:

1. pay the rape victims medical costs.  ALL of 'em.  from psych counseling to pre-natal care up through medical expenses incurred during and immediately after giving birth.
2. help put the kid up for adoption, even if the kid is 'special needs' or has medical issues.  you wanted 'em born, you pay for 'em.
3. make it a law that rape victims *cannot* be fired under any circumstances while carrying the rape baby to term, oh and you are going to give their significant other (or person they designate) the same level of protection.  they'll need support, and you are going to damn well make sure they get it.
4. if they decide to keep the rape baby, then you pay the woman a stipend over and above food stamps that you WILL make sure she gets...this was about as unplanned a pregnancy as unplanned can get and you WILL make sure to help her with all her unexpected/unplanned for expenses during her first year with her new child.
5. her rapist pays child support.  yes, I realize that's probably something like...20 cents or something...but it's the thought that counts.

do ALL of the above, and i'll believe you give a damn about the rape victim.  Don't do it, or weasel dick your way out of it, and I'll know you're a religious moron who hasn't thought the issue through.


THIS!
 
2013-01-25 01:04:00 PM  

Heathen: Quinzy: jehovahs witness protection: This and the anti-gay shiat pisses me off. I'm one of the few pro choice, pro gay marriage, atheist conservatives out there. DAMMIT!

I am also.

second

/throw in pro gun and agnostic you got yourself a deal there brother


Ditto.

The things which keep me from suggesting I'm Republican is their decision in the '70s to go this absurd Taliban level of religious tomfoolery. Up until then the Republican party was all for scientific advancement, supported unions, and women's causes.

"Government out of people's lives! Unless... you know, they're gay. Or atheist/agnostic/Jewish/Muslim. Or women. In THOSE cases, government should totally tell you what to do. But other than THAT...."
 
2013-01-25 01:04:34 PM  
Do they realize that a standard rape kit includes obtaining DNA evidence? Do they not also realize that DNA is not destroyed by an abortion?
 
2013-01-25 01:05:06 PM  

SkinnyHead: It is to prevent an abortion when the intent of the abortion is to cover up a sex offense.


But if having an abortion wouldn't cover up the sex offense (i.e. if DNA evidence would be preserved) then there would be no reason to force an abortion to cover up the offense.

Given that it is already a crime to take any action that destroys evidence (obstruction of justice), and already a crime to force an abortion onto any woman, this law doesn't add anything but an additional barrier to abortion rights.
 
2013-01-25 01:06:27 PM  

Weaver95: ...and how often does this sort of thing happen?  I mean if she wants to pass a law about it, it's gotta be happening like...what?  three/four/200 times a day?  enough that this legislator sees incest victims being FORCED into abortions often enough to sit down and write a law about it anyways.  which implies some rather disturbing things about New Mexico.


There is a case going through the courts in the UK at the moment; a gang of men who over years raped, abused and pimped a succession of underage girls from chaotic families and children's homes. Several back street abortions have been alleged.

I have no problem with a law which says that forcing or compelling a rape or incest victim to have an abortion is a crime; there seems to be nothing to suggest that the woman in question would face criminal sanctions or that her freedom to choose a termination would be circumscribed.
 
2013-01-25 01:06:59 PM  
Bit'O'Gristle The bill's language states that the crime "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."

/thread over, you have to have intent to destroy the evidence, this would preclude the victim getting an abortion. Non story.


Depends on interpretation really. One interpretation is that any woman who seeks an abortion because she got pregnant by rape is inherently seeking to destroy evidence of a crime. In the woman's mind, however, she is destroying the evidence of a violent crime for her own benefit and not to help the rapist get off.

If you consider the fetus that the woman was forced to create and doesn't want to birth "evidence".
 
Displayed 50 of 392 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report