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

It's been done already.

I ought to be shocked and disgusted that the GOP already proposed this but I think I have "farkup fatigue." That's when a group's policies have been so wrong . . . about so much . . . for so long, that when they proposed their latest fark-up, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Meh. What did you expect?"

Kome: 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.

Even though coercing an abortion to destroy evidence is probably illegal under a proper interpretation of existing laws against tampering with evidence, your average Chester does not have a GED in Law.  It is not unreasonable for the Legislature to spell it out for Chester to deter him from compounding his crime.

SkinnyHead: Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them

That's what I said in the other thread.  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.

It's good that she will clarify the language, but I'm not sure that will stop the dishonest left-wing media from distorting whatever language she uses.

Never mind the media.  It's social workers, police and prosecutors we need to worry about.

"Who fathered the baby you aborted?"  In some States (IDK about NM), a woman is pressured to name a father  in order to get social services.

"I don't wanna say.  I need/love him and don''t want him in trouble." Happens all the time in abusive/incestuous relationships.

"Fine, we'll charge you with tampering with evidence if you don't tell us."

Doesn't matter if the charge would stick, or if the DA would actually bring it.  The potential for intimidation of victims is in this law.

Change "any person" to "himself" and delete the rest of that sentence in cases of rape/incest.  I don't see how an abortion could throw suspicion upon someone else.

david_gaithersburg: DGS: david_gaithersburg: Can you provide a link to a story about "New Mexico republicans and their attempt to punish rape victims"? I'm reading a story about so-called-progressives manufacturing outrage over Republicans trying to punish the abusers of rape victims.

/Why are you pro rape?

True or false. If this bill was made into law, a woman that sought an abortion after being raped would be potentially hit with a third degree felony charge.

/heh, no, I don't actually expect you to answer. You just want people to play defense while you make absurd accusations.
//why are you pro government control?

.
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.

It's not a "draft" bill after it's introduced to the legislature.

BarkingUnicorn: SkinnyHead: Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them

That's what I said in the other thread.  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.

It's good that she will clarify the language, but I'm not sure that will stop the dishonest left-wing media from distorting whatever language she uses.

Never mind the media.  It's social workers, police and prosecutors we need to worry about.

"Who fathered the baby you aborted?"  In some States (IDK about NM), a woman is pressured to name a father  in order to get social services.

"I don't wanna say.  I need/love him and don''t want him in trouble." Happens all the time in abusive/incestuous relationships.

"Fine, we'll charge you with tampering with evidence if you don't tell us."

Doesn't matter if the charge would stick, or if the DA would actually bring it.  The potential for intimidation of victims is in this law.

Change "any person" to "himself" and delete the rest of that sentence in cases of rape/incest.  I don't see how an abortion could throw suspicion upon someone else.

Those are valid concerns.  That's why the sponsor of the bill is adding clarifying language that "In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged."

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.

Late to the party... but for what it's worth:

I love you.

halleyscomet: I hereby announce the creation of a new political party. We are the "Reagan republicans." We support:

1. Small government.
2. Individual freedom.
3. Fiscal conservatism.
4. Individual responsibility.
5. Individual accountability.
6. Public safety
7. Advancing the fiscal solvency and independence of the United States of America.

In short, the GOP will HATE us, because we'll grouse about raising the debt ceiling regardless of if it's a Republican or Democrat in the white house. Small Government and Individual Freedom means we're keeping government OUT of vaginas nationwide.

To be a true Reagan Republican, you'd need to add three items to your agenda (and remove number three because Reagan was all for running up the debt):
1. Kill unions.
2. Shift tax burden from the rich to the poor.
3. Kill off the middle class.
Or do these show up in your "mission accomplished" list?

/Reagan was an evil, anti-American SOB.

halleyscomet: I hereby announce the creation of a new political party. We are the "Reagan republicans." We support:

1. Small government.
2. Individual freedom.
3. Fiscal conservatism.
4. Individual responsibility.
5. Individual accountability.
6. Public safety
7. Advancing the fiscal solvency and independence of the United States of America.

In short, the GOP will HATE us, because we'll grouse about raising the debt ceiling regardless of if it's a Republican or Democrat in the white house. Small Government and Individual Freedom means we're keeping government OUT of vaginas nationwide.

Reagan was a stupid actor saying lines. He was as much a statist as any recent president. Why don't you simply join the Libertarian Party? They stand for all your seven points, and they've been around since the seventies. And yes, the GOP hates them.