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 125
    More: Followup, New Mexico Republican, New Mexico, rape victim, state legislature, abortions, felony, legislators, Carlsbad  
•       •       •

12788 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-25 10:37:58 AM  
43 votes:
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.
2013-01-25 09:48:32 AM  
37 votes:
The GOP has a fundie problem that doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Just like Militant Islam is bad for all Muslims, rabid "conservatism" (ie anti-abortion in all cases, pro NRA in all cases, anti-environment, anti-science, anti-gay) is bad for everyone who wants smaller government and more individual freedoms.

Face it GOP... your current party is made up predominantly of fascists and Dominionists. For every rational "fiscal" conservative there are 2 ignorant farksticks like this woman who are making you all look bad. Plus, they are noisy, making the problem worse. You can blame the "liberal" media all you want, but look in the mirror. It's you that keep voting these lunatics into office.

I'm sure as hell not voting for anyone I've seen recently who has an R after their name. It isn't just an image problem, it's the fact that for the most part your party is so farking wrong about so many different subjects. Most of these areas really aren't even up for debate... there is little nuance in believing rape victims should be force to carry to term their "gift from God". It is just wrong, period.
2013-01-25 10:27:01 AM  
9 votes:
Rep. Cathrynn Brown, a Republican from Carlsbad, said Thursday she will revise the bill, which she said was intended to target perpetrators of rape or incest who try to cover their tracks by forcing their victims to have abortions.

...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.

Another point - a live fetus and a dead one both contain DNA evidence.  DNA doesn't just evaporate after an abortion.  i'm sure that if you really needed evidence of incest (or rape I suppose) wouldn't it be more efficient to say that the remains of the fetus could be frozen and used for evidence as well?  why does the law force a rape victim to carry the rape baby to term?  that seems pretty cruel to me.
2013-01-25 10:31:00 AM  
8 votes:
Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.
2013-01-25 09:26:50 AM  
8 votes:
Why do people who will never have sex again spend so much time thinking about it?
2013-01-25 11:06:47 AM  
7 votes:

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.
2013-01-25 11:03:38 AM  
6 votes:

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.
2013-01-25 10:39:10 AM  
6 votes:

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.
2013-01-25 10:27:24 AM  
6 votes:
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.
2013-01-25 09:42:13 AM  
6 votes:
she's a coont.  I don't think I can be any more clear than that.
2013-01-25 02:48:59 PM  
5 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-25 11:35:57 AM  
5 votes:

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.


THEY are NOT pro-life. it is a bullshiat label. THEY are anti-abortion. THEY are pro control-women.
But those labels dont score as well as pro-life!!

/if only they were pro-compassion.
2013-01-25 11:24:20 AM  
5 votes:

Weaver95: 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.


clearly the women were asking to be raped. good, non-raped women stay home, waiting for their husband where it is safe

Their was a "fresh air" segment about 5 years ago. Minister was talking about why he supported the DEMS after being a GOP for most of his life. He pointed out that the DEMS did things to REDUCE the number of abortions.
Sex education = less unplanned pregnancies.
Free birth control = less unplanned pregnancies.
Welfare = method to help single women raise a child on their own.
better education of poor people = less unplanned pregnancies.
better work/job opportunities

well you get the picture.
the minister was quite outspoken about how these basic things did more to reduce abortion than what the GOP was doing.

So why are all these anti-choice people still voting GOP? Oh wait, sex is EVIL.
farkem

/csb
2013-01-25 11:20:12 AM  
5 votes:

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.


pro lifers only care about a 'baby' until it's actually born.
2013-01-25 09:45:03 AM  
5 votes:

ManateeGag: she's a coont.  I don't think I can be any more clear than that.


She's an elected coont. And that makes it worse.
2013-01-25 12:33:34 PM  
4 votes:

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 11:57:58 AM  
4 votes:

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, it woul ...


I would rather occasionally let someone game the system than leave a rape victim with nowhere to turn and no options.
2013-01-25 11:18:28 AM  
4 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?


Did you just count to potato?
2013-01-25 11:17:40 AM  
4 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?


Obam? Do you mean President Obama? He's not in jail because he hasn't broken and laws.

Did you mean the Scottish County of Oban? Now while I don't agree with wars of resources, we could make an exception for them...
2013-01-25 11:10:11 AM  
4 votes:
But yeah, there's no war on women. We're just being "over sensitive".
2013-01-25 02:28:40 PM  
3 votes:

clowncar on fire: It is the act of attempting to tamper with evidence and not necessarily the success of its removal that they are going after here.


no, this law is an attempt to back door outlawing abortions.  if this was about evidence, the law would say that the medical professionals were to take DNA samples after the abortion and forward them to a lab as evidence.  after all, there's just as much DNA evidence in a dead fetus as there is in a live one.
2013-01-25 12:55:15 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:36:01 PM  
3 votes:
niftycraft.com
2013-01-25 12:29:29 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:56:55 AM  
3 votes:

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

What does this even mean?

.
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

The bill is not needed, but the outrage is manufactured.


You're a farking idiot, you know that, right. No one above supported forced abortions, you made an outrageous claim about Obam(a), and then you admit that a bill is not needed but dismiss the negative consequences that a bill worded as this one would have in a state that has been shown to go after morality using the police force. You are a bad human being, a sorry Christian, and just a worthless POS in general.
2013-01-25 11:50:22 AM  
3 votes:

OooShiny: how exactly is fundy Christianology any different than fundy Islam?


They differ only in where they strap the explosives. Fundie Islamists wear the bombs on themselves, Fundie Christianists try to strap it on the whole country.
2013-01-25 11:27:25 AM  
3 votes:

BalugaJoe: Christian fundamentalists are worse than Al-Queda.


actually, they're about the same level of thuggery, at least when it comes to social issues and controls on society.  its just that one side worships Allah and the other side worships a different flavor of Allah.
2013-01-25 11:25:33 AM  
3 votes:

david_gaithersburg: what_now: david_gaithersburg: Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?

Obam? Do you mean President Obama? He's not in jail because he hasn't broken and laws.

Did you mean the Scottish County of Oban? Now while I don't agree with wars of resources, we could make an exception for them...

.
He should be brought before a court of law for a judge to decide if any laws have been broken. I can think of at lease twenty laws off the top of my head that he appears to have violated. One of them is in that big red headline.


...are you having a stroke?
2013-01-25 11:24:35 AM  
3 votes:

david_gaithersburg: what_now: david_gaithersburg: Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?

Obam? Do you mean President Obama? He's not in jail because he hasn't broken and laws.

Did you mean the Scottish County of Oban? Now while I don't agree with wars of resources, we could make an exception for them...

.
He should be brought before a court of law for a judge to decide if any laws have been broken. I can think of at lease twenty laws off the top of my head that he appears to have violated. One of them is in that big red headline.


Well, before anyone is brought before a judge someone has to charge him because they think he may have broken laws. Can you specifically name three of the 20 you can think of off the top of your head?

Difficulty: Presidenting while black is not a crime.
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:24:18 AM  
3 votes:

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

What does this even mean?

.
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

The bill is not needed, but the outrage is manufactured.


Nice! I ask you what it is you even mean and you're already positioning me! Thanks! I see I have you correctly marked as 'Derpy'.

For the record, the bill is atrocious. I believe in consent. Not 'no means no' but 'yes means yes' and not otherwise. I don't support anyone being forced by their abusers to do a damn thing, and I certainly don't support the abuse in the first place. To say this is manufactured outrage is to try and undermine what this bill would have potentially done, and you're absurd with your intended minimization. Shocking, I tell you, just shocking. :|

If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, I support her right to choose. This is an issue between her, her healthcare provider(s), and any potential partner(s) that need to be involved in the decision making. The state doesn't get to decide if the person is making the right choice.. or are you against personal liberty?

/I can do it, too. Stupid, isn't it.
2013-01-25 11:20:41 AM  
3 votes:
That's nice... Though, I'm really not interested in listening to any of your regressive nonsense wrapped up in a prettier package.

At least have the faith of your convictions and stand by the ridiculous bullshiat you claim to believe, you twat.
2013-01-25 11:17:33 AM  
3 votes:
The GOP Model of "It's Ok When We Have It Happen To Us"

1) Propose legislation that punishes victim.
2) Have someone in your family that is a victim in the same scenario.
3) Do mental gynmastics until you vomit to come up with an exception as to why #2 isn't like #1.
4) Don't punish the family member.
5) Profit.
2013-01-25 11:14:15 AM  
3 votes:
latimesblogs.latimes.com
the GOP would be a much more appealing party if they would just shut up and try and run the country instead of leading from a pulpit.
2013-01-25 10:57:47 AM  
3 votes:
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!
2013-01-25 10:57:28 AM  
3 votes:
DRTFA, but is this an "I'm sorry you got offended" apology?
2013-01-25 09:36:30 AM  
3 votes:
Paraphrase of "I'm a dim bint that wants to be re-elected so I won't have to work for a living."
2013-01-25 02:54:12 PM  
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: 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.


It is already illegal to coerce. Proof of paternity does not preclude an abortion since preservation of evidence is not dependant on carrying to term. Your reasoning has no logical or legal value. And for the love of god, give that poor chicken a break.
2013-01-25 01:32:34 PM  
2 votes:
t0.gstatic.com
2013-01-25 01:07:24 PM  
2 votes:

supayoda: 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?


Science is not exactly their strength.
2013-01-25 12:48:09 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:17:39 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:04:25 PM  
2 votes:

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.


If a conservative told me the sky was blue, I'd walk outside, verify that indeed it was the case, and carry on. You see, that's the difference between conservatives and, well, anyone else. We're more than happy to verify if something is true, and if it is, move on. The problem is that conservatives get proven wrong, then doggedly insist that the evidence is a Photoshop, that Obama isn't a citizen, that global warming isn't happening, that the Founding Fathers had zero intention of this being a "Christian nation", etc etc etc.
By the way, on that last bit, if you take the time to go to the Library of Congress and read some of the letters from Madison, Jefferson and others who signed the Constitution, you'll find my statement to be abundantly correct.
2013-01-25 11:54:44 AM  
2 votes:

macadamnut: give me doughnuts: Nice to see you are publishing a page out of the GOP play-book.

Well, he was a socialist after all. Just like black people are socialism.


He was a nationalistic authoritarian who was convinced of the natural superiority of Caucasians.

Just like the GOP's base.


p.s. You misspelled "SOSHLIZMS!"
2013-01-25 11:54:14 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-25 11:53:22 AM  
2 votes:

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, it would still be used as ammunition by conservatives and now the phantom of the "welfare queen" will be replaced by the phantom of the "rape queen" who is falsely claiming rape to cash in.

I can see lawyers defending their clients instead of "she is a known slut and look how she dressed" they will be trying to get the alleged victim's financial records entered in as evidence.
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:47:05 AM  
2 votes:

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.


And if Obama said that he loved breathing, you'd be blue in the face.
2013-01-25 11:37:16 AM  
2 votes:

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.


At least Feinstein *owns* her crap nugget. I swing back and forth on whether she's brilliantly falling on her sword to prove once and for all that the democrats don't want to take your guns, or if she's still that fanatical about it and this isn't theater at all. But she put that bill out there knowing that she was going to be torn apart for weeks in the press, and when she started getting torn apart in the press she didn't back away from the bill.

Courage is a weird thing.
2013-01-25 11:36:31 AM  
2 votes:

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.



Agreed. So many of those fundie anti-choice derpers cling to -- and try to inflict -- the "all life is sacred" tenet and THEN say "But we will permit exceptions in the cases of rape and incest."

They don't even see the stupidity in maintaining both assertions.
2013-01-25 11:33:34 AM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: what_now: Yeah, keep defending a law to make rape victims felons. That won't backfire AT ALL.

it's like the GOP refuses to understand the consequences of laws like this one would have for rape victims.  it's bizarre.


No, they understand it very well. Since they can't get it outlawed everywhere, they just make it as difficult as possible to obtain legally. They make it onerous for doctors to provide.

If they can't get actual elimination of abortion, they'll settle for virtual elimination of it by restricting it as much as possible.

They don't care about rape victims. I'm convinced most of them believe there aren't that many rape victims to worry about. Not surprisingly, they often have the same retrograde beliefs about sex crimes as they do about sex in general.
2013-01-25 11:33:13 AM  
2 votes:

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.


It's because they believe that, in roughly 100% of the cases (give or take 0%), when a woman claims rape, she's lying.
2013-01-25 11:31:06 AM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: what_now: Yeah, keep defending a law to make rape victims felons. That won't backfire AT ALL.

it's like the GOP refuses to understand the consequences of laws like this one would have for rape victims.  it's bizarre.


It's curious... If these people were just cynical opportunists, they would have seen the results of the last presidential election as a clear indication they need to change their policies and "core beliefs" to better attract voters.

But, the actions and words coming from the GOP in recent weeks seem to be indicating these people are true believers.

It really seems these assholes don't disagree with the fundamentalist nonsense being spewed by their more vocal members, they just object to them actually saying it in public.

How anyone with half a brain can remain part of a party like that or vote for these regressive morons is beyond me...
2013-01-25 11:28:58 AM  
2 votes:

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: 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."

Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them. Brown said she will clarify the language to remove any ambiguity.


Kind of looks like a non-story to me.

But go ahead with the outrage.


Because Fox News can't actually report worth shiat. What  actually happened is that, in a bill titled basically 'ACT ABOUT RAPE AND INCEST VICTIMS' (don't remember the exact language--the thread should still be available in the Politics tab for everyone, and someone found a linky to the PDF, but it actually said 'rape and incest victims', that one I am not paraphrasing in the slightest), the woman said in legal jargon that it was illegal to  give an abortion to a woman who was pregnant because the  baby (not fetus) is evidence.

You can legalize DNA-testing aborted fetuses. Or you can claim a human baby is evidence in a rape case, and since court cases take more than nine months...
2013-01-25 11:26:02 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-01-25 11:25:52 AM  
2 votes:

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

What does this even mean?

.
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

The bill is not needed, but the outrage is manufactured.

Nice! I ask you what it is you even mean and you're already positioning me!


It is easier to argue with things he pretended someone said than anything they actually say.
2013-01-25 11:24:27 AM  
2 votes:
Christian fundamentalists are worse than Al-Queda.
2013-01-25 11:22:45 AM  
2 votes:

david_gaithersburg: what_now: david_gaithersburg: Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?

Obam? Do you mean President Obama? He's not in jail because he hasn't broken and laws.

Did you mean the Scottish County of Oban? Now while I don't agree with wars of resources, we could make an exception for them...

.
He should be brought before a court of law for a judge to decide if any laws have been broken. I can think of at lease twenty laws off the top of my head that he appears to have violated. One of them is in that big red headline.


um...what are you talking about?
2013-01-25 11:19:10 AM  
2 votes:

david_gaithersburg: .
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?


how often does that even happen?  because i'm thinking it's gotta be pretty damn rare.  also, a live fetus and a dead one both have DNA evidence, right?  so can't you just use the dead fetus as your evidence anyway?
2013-01-25 11:16:18 AM  
2 votes:

alywa: The GOP has a fundie problem that doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Just like Militant Islam is bad for all Muslims, rabid "conservatism" (ie anti-abortion in all cases, pro NRA in all cases, anti-environment, anti-science, anti-gay) is bad for everyone who wants smaller government and more individual freedoms.

Face it GOP... your current party is made up predominantly of fascists and Dominionists. For every rational "fiscal" conservative there are 2 ignorant farksticks like this woman who are making you all look bad. Plus, they are noisy, making the problem worse. You can blame the "liberal" media all you want, but look in the mirror. It's you that keep voting these lunatics into office.

I'm sure as hell not voting for anyone I've seen recently who has an R after their name. It isn't just an image problem, it's the fact that for the most part your party is so farking wrong about so many different subjects. Most of these areas really aren't even up for debate... there is little nuance in believing rape victims should be force to carry to term their "gift from God". It is just wrong, period.


Dude, where are the sparkly, crying eagless and the cries to take back America for the Real Americans? I'm disappointed.

/no, seriously, I couldn't agree more
2013-01-25 11:09:53 AM  
2 votes:
Rapeublican.
2013-01-25 03:40:42 PM  
1 votes:
i449.photobucket.com

/Va-jayjays do NOT belong to the state.
/I only rent them once in a while. It's cheaper that way.
2013-01-25 03:38:43 PM  
1 votes:

Brubold: Keizer_Ghidorah: Brubold: So she writes a bill that will prosecute rapists who try to make their victims get an abortion to cover up the crime. Some people make the debatable claim the language in the bill is too broad and could cause the victims to be prosecuted. She says she'll clarify it to make sure that doesn't happen and somehow the liberals are upset at this?

The (D)erp brigade strikes again.

Why would she need to make a law that ALREADY EXISTS? It's back-door abortion blocking, pure and simple.

Oh good grief. No it isn't. She was trying to do a good thing. A rare accomplishment from a member of our government. She's not in the same category as the GOP morons who want to tell us all about how women's bodies react to rape and how great rape babies are. The reaction to what this woman was trying to do is (D)erp. Plain and simple.


You can get DNA from a dead fetus as easily as you can from a live one. I also want to see actual documented numbers of rapists who forced their victims to have abortions to cover their tracks.

Sorry, this still smacks of victim-punishing and anti-abortion. If she didn't want it to sound that way, she should have done a better job of writing it up in the first place.
2013-01-25 03:35:33 PM  
1 votes:

Brubold: Keizer_Ghidorah: Brubold: So she writes a bill that will prosecute rapists who try to make their victims get an abortion to cover up the crime. Some people make the debatable claim the language in the bill is too broad and could cause the victims to be prosecuted. She says she'll clarify it to make sure that doesn't happen and somehow the liberals are upset at this?

The (D)erp brigade strikes again.

Why would she need to make a law that ALREADY EXISTS? It's back-door abortion blocking, pure and simple.

Oh good grief. No it isn't. She was trying to do a good thing. A rare accomplishment from a member of our government. She's not in the same category as the GOP morons who want to tell us all about how women's bodies react to rape and how great rape babies are. The reaction to what this woman was trying to do is (D)erp. Plain and simple.


The very fact that you equate the objections raised to a political affiliation indicates just how much thought you've actually put into the topic. That you also seem to think that explains everything does not do you credit.

Did you actually read any of the valid points made by other in this thread?

I find it very unlikely that you did.
2013-01-25 03:23:10 PM  
1 votes:

RedTank: Mugato: How much do you think these people actually get from the gov't?

Weaver95: so...you just slept your way through the OWS protests then...?

times they are a'changing!

The idea that "poor" people will one day rise up against the "rich" is something that rich people like to tell themselves in order to justify their greed while at the same time demonizing the poor.

Then ignorant poor people like to perpetuate that idea to sound tough and smart and it just feeds into the rich person's stereotypical expectations of the poor. Rich people (and everyone to a degree, it's just that rich people get more say because money = speech) have a problem with blowing things out of proportion in order to gain influence and power through fear, don't give them a reason.


all I know is that rich folks got REAL worried about OWS.  worried enough that the FBI reactivated COINTELPRO and local cops when off on 'em often enough for the casual brutality to end up on youtube.

it's a start.  where it goes from here, who can say?  try to remember that it took years of abuse for this country to get worked up enough to break free of England and kick off the Revolutionary war.  And it took decades to get the South to start the civil war.  we could be in similar times right now.  difficult to say where you are in the cycle when you happen to be caught up in that wheel yourself.
2013-01-25 03:06:19 PM  
1 votes:
clowncar on fire:
You say someday the poor are gonna rise up against their rich oppressors? I think it will be more like- sorry but the gravy train done run out of gravy.

so...you just slept your way through the OWS protests then...?

times they are a'changing!
2013-01-25 03:05:51 PM  
1 votes:

clowncar on fire: You say someday the poor are gonna rise up against their rich oppressors? I think it will be more like- sorry but the gravy train done run out of gravy.


How much do you think these people actually get from the gov't?
2013-01-25 03:04:57 PM  
1 votes:

Mike_1962: SkinnyHead: 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.

It is already illegal to coerce. Proof of paternity does not preclude an abortion since preservation of evidence is not dependant on carrying to term. Your reasoning has no logical or legal value. And for the love of god, give that poor chicken a break.


Look at who you're talking to. It's SkinnyHead. He raises an entire farm of chickens to fark!
2013-01-25 02:55:08 PM  
1 votes:

clowncar on fire: This law hardly seems partisan though as it is never in the interest of a victim to be coerced into an abortion should the rapist believe he is actually hiding or damaging evidence.


How often do pro-lifers really think this happens?
2013-01-25 02:49:56 PM  
1 votes:

alywa: The GOP has a fundie problem that doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Just like Militant Islam is bad for all Muslims, rabid "conservatism" (ie anti-abortion in all cases, pro NRA in all cases, anti-environment, anti-science, anti-gay) is bad for everyone who wants smaller government and more individual freedoms.

Face it GOP... your current party is made up predominantly of fascists and Dominionists. For every rational "fiscal" conservative there are 2 ignorant farksticks like this woman who are making you all look bad. Plus, they are noisy, making the problem worse. You can blame the "liberal" media all you want, but look in the mirror. It's you that keep voting these lunatics into office.

I'm sure as hell not voting for anyone I've seen recently who has an R after their name. It isn't just an image problem, it's the fact that for the most part your party is so farking wrong about so many different subjects. Most of these areas really aren't even up for debate... there is little nuance in believing rape victims should be force to carry to term their "gift from God". It is just wrong, period.


Much as we'd like to believe that the Rape-ublican Party is on the wrong side of history, there is discouraging evidence that their attitudes are more widely shared around the world. Just look at much of Africa, especially Uganda and Nigeria, where homophobia seems as natural as breathing. Look at Russia, where autocracy and homophobia are becoming enshrined in legislation. Look at Hungary, where the extreme Right seeks to strangle all opposition -- cultural as well as political. That's not even including worldwide Islamism. Xenophobia, theocracy, fascism, hatred and fear are trending like crazy all over the world.

Thank goodness for these United States of America, as we seem to be bucking the trend. Never thought I'd ever feel that way.
2013-01-25 02:41:23 PM  
1 votes:

paygun: Sound like common sense abortion control. Why do you need an abortion?


Because I'm pregnant. End of discussion.
2013-01-25 02:29:07 PM  
1 votes:

clowncar on fire: The My Little Pony Killer: Mike_1962: 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

I know this is counter intuitive, but in legal language, intent does not equal motive. Applying for an abortion is intent to destroy the fetus. The fetus is evidence in this circumstance. Therefore, intent to destroy evidence is established. None of this speaks to motive which is, in fact, unrelated.

Evidence is not being destroyed though. It's simply being removed. The DNA is still there and usable.

It is the act of attempting to tamper with evidence and not necessarily the success of its removal that they are going after here.

What if a victim wants to keep her child- as in the case of statutory rape-- but that it is in best interest of the father that that child be aborted? Surely the evidence- be it word of the mother, or post abortion dna-- would remain. But is not the act of attemting to alter or remove such evidence through a possibly unwanted abortion still wrong? That is what this bill is attempting to define/clerify.

Any law is subject to a whole bunch of "what if's". You do your best to cover a majority of circumstance and append it as needed.


That's already covered through obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and a myriad of other laws.

Why do you need a special law just for abortions when your scenario is already covered by existing law?
2013-01-25 02:16:09 PM  
1 votes:
The My Little Pony Killer: Mike_1962: 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

I know this is counter intuitive, but in legal language, intent does not equal motive. Applying for an abortion is intent to destroy the fetus. The fetus is evidence in this circumstance. Therefore, intent to destroy evidence is established. None of this speaks to motive which is, in fact, unrelated.

Evidence is not being destroyed though. It's simply being removed. The DNA is still there and usable.


And as pointed out before, when the rape victim first reported the crime, the rape kit used would include collecting DNA evidence so that evidence is already there. Under the logic being claimed here, if the rape victim didn't get pregnant, there would be no evidence of the rape.
2013-01-25 02:11:27 PM  
1 votes:

Mike_1962: 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

I know this is counter intuitive, but in legal language, intent does not equal motive. Applying for an abortion is intent to destroy the fetus. The fetus is evidence in this circumstance. Therefore, intent to destroy evidence is established. None of this speaks to motive which is, in fact, unrelated.


Evidence is not being destroyed though. It's simply being removed. The DNA is still there and usable.
2013-01-25 02:10:09 PM  
1 votes:

clowncar on fire: david_gaithersburg: DGS: david_gaithersburg: So-called-progressives, doing their part to keep down the national reading level.

What does this even mean?

.
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

The bill is not needed, but the outrage is manufactured.

This may also include victims who seek an abortion for the intent of covering the identity of the rapist. As much as there are those who would drool all over themselves by calling this "prosecuting the victim", what we really have is a seperate criminal act of covering up/destroying of evidence in a criminal case.

I don't believe this bill was about criminalizing abortion resulting from rape as a way to compell women to have rape babies so much as a way to define/prevent the act of destrotying evidence intentionally during an active criminal case which may include both the rapist and their victim. In short- have an abortion if you need. Do not encourage or engage in abortion if you are attempting to avoid prosecution for the act of rape or an attempt to hide the identity of the perpurtrator.


If a rape victim (except for statuatory rape) wants to protect the perpetrator (get a dictionary btw) they don't charge them with rape, or refuse to cooperate with the prosecution. Rape is difficult to prove already, not on physical grounds, but on the grounds of intent, consent, coercion, etc.
2013-01-25 02:02:16 PM  
1 votes:

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


I resisted putting anyone on ignore for a long time, but eventually I realized that some posters are not actually giving a point of view or even trolling. Their sole purpose seems to be to generate static in order to degrade the thread. So, I started to ignore the most egregious space wasters. I still try not to ignore someone on the basis of disagreement...it can be a fine line though.
2013-01-25 02:01:21 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-25 01:46:09 PM  
1 votes:
GOP:

Abortion only for rape victims.
Rape victims must not abort because it's "evidence".

Right.

FSM, I hate these people with the white hot heat of a thousand suns.
2013-01-25 01:43:25 PM  
1 votes:
But I thought you can't get pregnant from a rape.
2013-01-25 01:40:12 PM  
1 votes:

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.


So... Libertarianism? Add States' rights to your list and the party already exists. They even ran under the Republican banner last election. And the GOP hated them.
2013-01-25 01:24:34 PM  
1 votes:

pdee: /CSB

My wife teaches middle school special ED. Several times she has had 12-14 year old students come up pregnant. She pointed out to school officials that the police should be notified because someone has to be guilty of statutory rape if a retarded 12-14 year old is preggers. In all cases she was told NOYFB and GBTW.

In one case she plead with the grandma(the child's guardian) that the kid should have an abortion. Grandma said no way as grandma would be getting the checks from the government as the child's guardian.

/END CSB


So, Grandma told your wife all of that, huh? I'm sure she was looking forward to raising a baby at her advanced age, while simultaneously caring for the underaged mother for a couple hundred bucks extra a month.


/I call shenanigans
2013-01-25 01:23:37 PM  
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: 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.


To be clear though: if a 16 year old girl procures an abortion in whole or in part to protect her 19 year old boyfriend, the specific intent element would be met.
2013-01-25 01:21:49 PM  
1 votes:

orbister: 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.


I call situations like this the "Legal, But" approach. If you, as a legislator, can raise questions in the minds of law abiding citizens about the legality of their activities, many will choose not to exercise their rights. When "the clock is ticking" on getting an abortion, which is already a difficult *AND PERSONAL* decision, the last thing a rape victim needs is some legislation to navigate to make sure that she can continue to press charges against a rapist without putting herself on the wrong side of the law.

Whether this is reprehensible or just dumb as all fark depends entirely on whether we believe this Legal But situation was an intentional consequence of the bill or not.
2013-01-25 01:15:24 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-25 01:07:56 PM  
1 votes:

supayoda: 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?


Science has no place in the Republican party, unless that scientific advancement can some how make them a lot of money.
2013-01-25 01:04:34 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:01:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:51:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:49:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:43:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:40:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:26:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:22:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:22:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:17:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:12:58 PM  
1 votes:

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

What does this even mean?

.
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

The bill is not needed, but the outrage is manufactured.

You're a farking idiot, you know that, right. No one above supported forced abortions, you made an outrageous claim about Obam(a), and then you admit that a bill is not needed but dismiss the negative consequences that a bill worded as this one would have in a state that has been shown to go after morality using the police force. You are a bad human being, a sorry Christian, and just a worthless POS in general.


Look, a sociopath is not necessarily an idiot. Please don't insult idiots by lumping this sociopath in with them. Lots of idiots are nice people.
2013-01-25 12:10:42 PM  
1 votes:

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
2013-01-25 11:56:07 AM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?


I see a beach and a pier. I guess is just shows us all what we want to see!
2013-01-25 11:50:42 AM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: [derpage]

a

re you ok?  you aren't making much sense.  is there a medical condition we should be aware of...?
2013-01-25 11:50:17 AM  
1 votes:
You guys know that no one gets an abortion at gun point, right? And the abortion provider talks to you for a while to make sure that's really what you want and that no one is forcing you to have the procedure?

Are some women pressured into having an abortion? Absolutely. All the time.

This bill wouldn't STOP that from happening, its a ham fisted attempt to make aborting even more difficult on women. The idea that a live baby is needed for DNA is ridiculous to anyone smart enough to SPELL DNA.
2013-01-25 11:50:11 AM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: 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.

[www.blogster.com image 500x607]


Nice to see you are publishing a page out of the GOP play-book.
2013-01-25 11:47:48 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-25 11:47:31 AM  
1 votes:
Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:42:24 AM  
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Because Fox News can't actually report worth shiat. What actually happened is that, in a bill titled basically 'ACT ABOUT RAPE AND INCEST VICTIMS' (don't remember the exact language--the thread should still be available in the Politics tab for everyone, and someone found a linky to the PDF, but it actually said 'rape and incest victims', that one I am not paraphrasing in the slightest), the woman said in legal jargon that it was illegal to give an abortion to a woman who was pregnant because the baby (not fetus) is evidence.

The title of the bill was "AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING PROCURING OF AN ABORTION AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST."


So you think any woman impregnated by a rapist is only behaving responsibly if she takes the fetus to term and can then show the state it really was the accused rapists child? That it is her duty to bear proof, and the rest of the discussion is without merit?

/deep thoughts with..
2013-01-25 11:41:31 AM  
1 votes:
I'm surprised that this came from a New Mexico representative. Arizona? Yes. New Mexico? not so much.

I'm totally not surprised this came from a Republican, though.
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:40:26 AM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-01-25 11:39:56 AM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Because Fox News can't actually report worth shiat. What actually happened is that, in a bill titled basically 'ACT ABOUT RAPE AND INCEST VICTIMS' (don't remember the exact language--the thread should still be available in the Politics tab for everyone, and someone found a linky to the PDF, but it actually said 'rape and incest victims', that one I am not paraphrasing in the slightest), the woman said in legal jargon that it was illegal to give an abortion to a woman who was pregnant because the baby (not fetus) is evidence.


The title of the bill was "AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING PROCURING OF AN ABORTION AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST."
2013-01-25 11:37:04 AM  
1 votes:
Nope, I don't think we need any "clarification" to understand you just fine.
2013-01-25 11:36:30 AM  
1 votes:

jst3p: You should audit an 8th grade civics class sometime.


Whoa there... He's got to get out of the Fourth Grade before he can do that. Baby step, man. Baby steps.
2013-01-25 11:35:48 AM  
1 votes:
Repubs--even their women are in favor of rape.

They're creepy and they're kooky
Mysterious and spooky
They're altogether ooky
...the REPUBS!
2013-01-25 11:33:25 AM  
1 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: 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!

You are in the wrong party.

Abandon it.


The Rapeublican party has left many people behind. The choices are either to go to the fascists or the Libertarians. I would not be surprised one bit to see the ranks of the Libertarians start to swell.
2013-01-25 11:33:15 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-25 11:32:15 AM  
1 votes:
Why not force rape victims to marry the rapists, thereby preserving evidence until death do they part.

Speaking of...tell me again, please; how exactly is fundy Christianology any different than fundy Islam?
2013-01-25 11:29:45 AM  
1 votes:

what_now: david_gaithersburg: what_now: david_gaithersburg: Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?

Obam? Do you mean President Obama? He's not in jail because he hasn't broken and laws.

Did you mean the Scottish County of Oban? Now while I don't agree with wars of resources, we could make an exception for them...

.
He should be brought before a court of law for a judge to decide if any laws have been broken. I can think of at lease twenty laws off the top of my head that he appears to have violated. One of them is in that big red headline.

...are you having a stroke?


www.bitcandy.com
2013-01-25 11:29:17 AM  
1 votes:
Republican plan:

Propose law: Death penalty for anyone who isn't a white christian
Public: This is an outrage!
Politician: No no, let me clarify, what I meant was free American flags for everyone. Damn liberal media
2013-01-25 11:24:56 AM  
1 votes:

what_now: Yeah, keep defending a law to make rape victims felons. That won't backfire AT ALL.


it's like the GOP refuses to understand the consequences of laws like this one would have for rape victims.  it's bizarre.
2013-01-25 11:24:03 AM  
1 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:23:40 AM  
1 votes:

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.


So is forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist.  And execution for homosexuals.
2013-01-25 11:23:03 AM  
1 votes:
I thought that women can't get preggers from teh rape.
2013-01-25 11:22:19 AM  
1 votes:

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!


You are in the wrong party.

Abandon it.
2013-01-25 11:17:07 AM  
1 votes:
Sounds like somebody's daughter is a little late this month.
2013-01-25 11:17:05 AM  
1 votes:
Pretty typical politician, open your food hole without thinking and then backtracking when you are either completely wrong or hit 10 on the scale of DERP.
2013-01-25 11:15:14 AM  
1 votes:
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."

Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them. Brown said she will clarify the language to remove any ambiguity.



Kind of looks like a non-story to me.

But go ahead with the outrage.
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:13:38 AM  
1 votes:

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


What does this even mean?
2013-01-25 11:12:26 AM  
1 votes:
Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?
2013-01-25 10:03:54 AM  
1 votes:

syrynxx: Why do people who will never have sex again spend so much time thinking about it?


They're mad that other people are having all the fun. And they want to stop those other people from having any fun AT ALL COSTS.
 
Displayed 125 of 125 comments

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


Report