Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

NM Bill would criminalize abortion in rape cases

New Mexico Abortion Tampering with evidence Rape 2013

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:36 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 25 January 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

^ Isn't co-ercing someone to have an abortion a crime already, regardless of whether the pregnancy was a result of consensual sex, or rape? I would think that co-ercing rape victims to have abortions would typically be done by non-stranger rapist (such as incest or partner rape), sadly more common than most would probably guess I imagine.

The woman I mention in discussions of abortion, the one who tried to recruit me for Operation Rescue, claimed to have been coerced into having an abortion by a boyfriend.  She had a daughter from a previous relationship, but apparently spent time with a man who wanted no children.  She also claimed that the abortion rendered her sterile, and she clearly suffered terrible guilt because she couldn't give her current husband a child.  Though her abortion was, according to her account, not her choice, she was rabidly antichoice for all other women (except, of course, her daughter, whom she, the big hypocrite, would have taken to another country if she, the daughter, wanted one), and completely disregarded my radically different experience of abortion when her recruiting attempts turned into outright bullying.

This is probably why I consider much of the antichoice rhetoric, over the top as much of it is, as an attempt to bully women who have already had abortions into guilt trips, and probably why I have upped my own rhetoric.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#22 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:19 AM

Quote

“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."

So it includes but is not limited to compelling others to obtain abortions. It includes procuring or facilitating such an abortion, without compulsion or coercion. Sounds to me like it's exactly what it says on the tin.

#23 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:52 PM

View Poststandish, on 25 January 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

Every once in awhiile, I come across a story that just doesn't pass the "smell test".  This is one of them.  It didn't take much searching to find comments from the author of this bill.  I'm a little surprised no one here looked for them.  Anyway, here's an article that is critical of an MSNBC report on this law...


Quote

Had Roberts done some basic research, however, he would have realized the law is designed to do no such thing. In fact, as the bill itself says, the crime (emphasis mine), “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."

State Representative Cathrynn Brown said the purpose of the bill was to target perpetrators of rape or incest who try to cover their tracks by forcing their victims to have abortions.  Brown does say that she will clarify the language in the bill to remove any ambiguity that victims of rape would be charged, which she in no way desires to do.

Read more: http://newsbusters.o...s#ixzz2J2nS7fIy



Now, personally, I'm not aware of the crime, Ms. Brown refers to, being such a prevalent problem that it requires a law like this to be considered.  But, maybe I'm naive about it.

No, I read what she claimed.  It sounded like backpedaling to me.  The law pretty clearly stated that women who procure abortions will be in violation of the law.  So she's either backpedaling, or so bad at writing laws that she has no business being a lawmaker.  

The bill, as written, states  "“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."   I'm going to point out that "tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling" is pretty clear that the woman who has an abortion, regardless of reason, with or without coercion, is guilty under this law.  Also, how the hell are we going to define "compelling"?  Maybe there's a specific legal definition that I don't know, but if my sister tells me she's raped and thinks she's pregnant, am I going to go to jail if I tell her I think it would be better if she had an abortion and gave her my reasons why?  Furthermore, how is anyone going to legally prove coercion?  If an angry boyfriend says "I'm not going to stay with you and raise your rapist's baby, it's either me or the fetus" is that coercion, and if it is how do you intend to prove it in court?  Even in incest cases where there could be very real threats of violence it will be hard to prove coercion until the rapist is stupid enough to write it down somewhere.

Under this law, the only person you would be able to routinely convict is the pregnant rape victim herself.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#24 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:01 PM

Yep, she backpedaled.  Did it fast too, as soon as the backlash hit.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#25 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,097 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:09 PM

View PostLin731, on 24 January 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

It's just more mucking around trying to find a way to do what they haven't been able to legislate. If you can't outlaw it, find ways to defund it or pass laws so onerous that providers can't possible meet them. These guys wonder why they are held in such low regard?  I've seen some life long Republicans leave the party over stuff like this lately, feeling that the party is spending way too much time trying to go back to the 50's and not nearly enough time in te present doing things that are vital to the country as a whole.


It's not just Republicans- it's conservatives in general, including other countries such as Canada, the UK, Europe and elsewhere.


For moderate conservatives like myself it's a case of being lost in the wilderness, because there is literally no one out there that represents the views of moderate conservatives. Conservatism everywhere has been hijacked by nutters, racists, people with an axe to grind and kooks with some sort of agenda.


What makes it especially frustrating is that so few in the conservative world have the least clue as to what is going on. In the US the big problem is Straussians such as William Kristol and his father (who was a student of Leo Strauss), Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and a host of others that are the behind-the-scenes snakes that make up the neo-con movement.


This type of diddling with the law is the purview of this particular branch of Conservatism. They will say and do literally anything to further their agenda, no matter how dishonest, immoral, repugnant, and socially disruptive and destructive it may be.


What's really sick is that these people don't give a rat's arse about the abortion issue. What it really is is a control issue. One of their primary aims is destroying individual self-determination. That particular bit of sickness comes directly from Straussian philosophy, which, incidentally, is taught at institutions like Harvard.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#26 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:03 PM

View Poststandish, on 25 January 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

Every once in awhiile, I come across a story that just doesn't pass the "smell test".  This is one of them.  It didn't take much searching to find comments from the author of this bill.  I'm a little surprised no one here looked for them.  Anyway, here's an article that is critical of an MSNBC report on this law...


Quote

Had Roberts done some basic research, however, he would have realized the law is designed to do no such thing. In fact, as the bill itself says, the crime (emphasis mine), “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."

State Representative Cathrynn Brown said the purpose of the bill was to target perpetrators of rape or incest who try to cover their tracks by forcing their victims to have abortions.  Brown does say that she will clarify the language in the bill to remove any ambiguity that victims of rape would be charged, which she in no way desires to do.


Read more: http://newsbusters.o...s#ixzz2J2nS7fIy




Now, personally, I'm not aware of the crime, Ms. Brown refers to, being such a prevalent problem that it requires a law like this to be considered.  But, maybe I'm naive about it.

Thank God. I was hoping we didn't have another political moron on the loose.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#27 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:36 PM

And now the bill has been rewritten in such as way that doctors who perform an abortion on a rape victim who comes to them freely can be charged with a felony.

Don't tell me this law maker is just trying to protect rape victims.  As I said before, either her views are odious, or she's so bad at writing clearly that she has no business writing laws in the first place.

link

Quote

"Either Cathrynn Brown thinks we can't read or she's trying to pull another fast one," said Scott Forrester, DPNM Executive Director. "After getting busted on the national stage for a bill that would criminalize rape victims, Brown walked it back about as fast as she could. But her "fix" is nothing of the kind. The bill still makes it a crime to "facilitate" an abortion for a woman who wants one, bottom line. That means doctors, nurses, or anyone else who works at a health care clinic where this is one of the services provided would still be guilty of a felony"

We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#28 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:01 PM

I'm a guy so I could never appreciate an abortion on the level a woman would, although I don't agree with late term abortions except for life of the mother.  I get that for a "devout" religious person a life is a life no matter how it is conceived, it's not the baby's fault or so the reasoning goes. Having said that, I think this woman is just as disgusting as a rapist in some ways.  God bless women who can find it in themselves to carry their rapists baby to term, but for most women, I think it would be like having their rapist inside them on some level every day they wake up, over and over again reminded of the trauma.  She wants to force women to experience that based on her own moral convictions.

#29 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:46 PM

^I consider myself pro-choice and honestly I agree with you that late-term abortions should only be performed if the mother's life is at risk (or if the baby is already dead/discovered to be completely non-viable).  I suppose there's some issue with how exactly one defines "late-term", but that's an issue for another thread.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#30 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,761 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:56 AM

A) an aborted fetus offers all the genetic evidence of a live fetus.

B) That a pregnancy isn't the product of the rapist IN NO WAY signifies that there was no rape. That would only be true if "it ain't rape unless you were a virgin". A pregnancy by a husband, boyfriend, co-rapist or other doesn't mean no rape happened. If it *is* the product of the accused rapist, the non-consensual act must still be proven. If you can do that, you don't really need the fetus. Heck, any decent attorney, faced with pre-trial DNA evidence, would argue that the real issue is consent, so paternity should be excluded as 'not evidential' and purely 'prejudicial/inflammatory'.

C) I bet they won't even consider the [slightly less flawed] argument that since rape is a felony, any rapist who causes a pregnancy could be brought up on felony murder or equivalent -- i.e. the abortion would be a death resulting from a felony (a lawful choice for the woman, but not the rapist)

-- Orpheus "I've generally counted myself a conservative--a lassez faire fiscal conservative"

#31 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:35 PM

Oh this politician can polish that turd all she wants, her intent is clear and all the back pedaling and tapdancing around it in the world doesn't change that. If I were a Republican I'd be offended that someone from my own party would attempt to insult my intelligence in this way. It's like a neon signs that says "I think you're all morons that will beleive whatever fertilizer I spread".
Posted Image
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: New Mexico, Abortion, Tampering with evidence, Rape, 2013

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users