Bill To Criminalize Abortion After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

Bill Would Criminalize Abortion After Rape As “Tampering With Evidence”

By Laura Bassett | HuffPost | 01/24/2013 4:23 pm EST
Excerpts:

“A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

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

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.
Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive nonprofit opposing the bill, called it "blatantly unconstitutional" on Thursday.

“The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state,” he said. “According to Republican philosophy, victims who are ‘legitimately raped’ will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case.“

The bill is unlikely to pass, as Democrats have a majority in both chambers of New Mexico's state legislature.

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

“New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders,” said Brown. ‘By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.’ ”

read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html
.....

Leave it to a GOP to introduce a bill so blatantly unconstitutional that it is almost laughable.

That such a stupid person could ever be elected to such an important office is pretty mysterious, but hey, a stupid republican in state legislatures is not a rarity these days.

Any legislator that seriously contends that a rape victim should be made to carry the fetus to term to serve as evidence in order to deter sex offenders and also for attorneys to prove theri cases, is treating women as inferior objects in the efforts to win their cases.

What the bill does for ‘protection of women’ eludes me. The Judge should rule that ‘the rapist should have his genitals removed so that any other woman does not have to undergo the trauma of carrying that fetus to term just to prove a case.

 

This has to be one of the most ridiculous and misogynistic things I've ever seen. Luckily it has no hope of passing.

 

My God. These people are animals. The United States is populated by inhuman animals.

 

I'm with you on that one! We're paying these buttheads to come up with stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) like that??? I want my money back!

 

Yeah, and they wonder why they are called the stupid party.

 

This is as depraved and perverted a proposal as I have ever seen from the pro-hatred of women groups.

We need to consider reclassifying their way of thinking as a pathology, such as sadists are classed.

Imagine their cruelty if these people ever got full political power!

 

I really hope this story turns out to be untrue b/c it's hard for me to fathom any 'adult' being so out of touch w/reality, willing to victimize the victim all over again by forcing her to have the rapist's baby and willing to send a rape/incest victim to prison for not giving birth to the 'evidence'..... something or someone is really sick here......

 

It looks like the bill is being completely misinterpreted.

It hasn't outlawed any abortions in general, rather, they are outlawing intentional destruction of evidence. You need that intent; it is still possible for them to get an abortion for any other reason.

It's like shredding documents. Shredding documents is perfectly legal. But if you find yourself under investigation for a crime, and then you shred all the relevant documents, then it's a crime.

Destruction of evidence is what is outlawed.

 

Besides. These abortions would be completely unnecessary in any case.

It's called the morning after pill.

 

I'm not to sure about what you're talking about here....

"It's possible for the female to get an abortion for any other reason..." she had been raped, left pregnant - what other 'reason' would she need?

From what Brown said, if there's a case of rape/incest and results in pregnancy, if the victim gets an abortion, she would be facing up to 3 yrs in prison for 'evidence tampering'.......

Incest does happen, so what is she saying? If a 12-14 yr old KID gets pregnant by her father, she has to have her father's baby? I'd like to hear this female explain exactly what she's babbling about......

 

Of course that is wrong. But, like I said, that is not what this bill does at all.

Plus, again, it's called the morning after pill.

 

The bill criminales abortions only with the intent of destruction of evidence to hide a crime.

She doesn't need a reason at all. Abortions are legal, no questions asked. She'll still probably have a reason though. Why did you put "reason" in quote marks?

Again, that's not what the bill says. Don't go about what other people say, go off what the bill says. It clearly says its destruction of evidence when that is the intent.

Who are you on about?

 

If the Republican party had their way, we WILL force women to keep rape babies!

Its in their national platform, adopted in 2012 for the presidential election.

To the Right, raped women are NOTHING except incubators for the men who raped them, men who will have a hold on these women for their entire life!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/platform-abortion_n_1837571.html

 

I am very much pro-life, but I would stop short of criminalizing any abortions or changing any laws towards it, if for no other reason than it's impractical. The reason is because I believe in both the right and the necessity to an abortion when the mother is in elevated danger or is being harmed, yet the only ones who can work out whether or not that is the case would be the mother and her doctor. It's not something you can quantify or codify in any statute, and no judge or jury could make any such determination.. Even if the woman is not in danger, the doctor could say so and how can you dispute?

Nevertheless I am morally opposed to unnecessary abortions, and say that women shouldn't have an elective abortion, and wish that this would stop. But also, people shouldn't have the right to stick their nose into the affairs of a pregnant woman.

I can see the validity on both sides of this issue. Both sides have their own pros and cons, and both have powerful arguments. I believe in human rights for both the baby and the pregnant mother. I simply just weigh them and find that for the baby it weighs more. I can imagine for others the scale is in the opposite direction. Fair dues.

What I do not appreciate, however, is people who make arguments in which they belittle a baby, saying it's a useless clump of cells, it's not a human being, it's not alive, or any other such nonsense, when in reality it is a precious human being. I believe that is done for sugar coating purposes so that abortions don't sound as unethical.

 

"The party states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." It opposes using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. It says the party will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage."

Strangely enough your own article disputes what you highlighted... it helps when you read the entire article.

 

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

The start is definetly the issue with the bill not the end. If someone is being coerced to have an abortion of course that should be a crime. Meanwhile the thought that any abortion of a rape being "tampering with evidence" is pure lunacy.

 

But not really a serious crime, should it ? After all, according to pro-choicers, the fetus is just an inconsequential piece of tissue no more significant than medical waste.
Being coerced to have an abortion should be no worse than if someone was coerced to have an enema. A pro-choicer would be very inconsistent and hypocritical if she wanted coerced abortion to be taken any more seriously.

Perhaps you should go take a look at these threads again:
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/256343-everyone-calls-baby-when-shes-not-having-abortion.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/285579-leftys-finally-admit-murder.html

 

If DNA is the "evidence" .. can't you get DNA from from the aborted fetus?

 

It appears that she has revised her bill.

http://www.currentargus.com/ci_22453473/cathrynn-browns-revised-abortion-bill-says-mothers-cant

 

the good news is this crazy bill will never pass

- - - Updated - - -

the good news is this crazy bill will never pass

 

forcing a rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term or forcing her to abort should be a crime

pro-choice means we support the choice, it doesn't mean we agree with a persons choice, just that it is their choice and not ours to make

.