New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
Source: Huffington Post
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.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html
Nancy Waterman
(6,407 posts)Yet more evidence of Republican shamelessness and stupidity.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)So, let us assume for just a second this was a law. What if the doctor performed the abortion and kept the product of conception for DNA testing, which is, I can only assume, her freak reasoning behind writing this bill? How could they be charged with a crime if they DO preserved the evidence of the crime, like, in a jar, sent to a crime lab, just like other biological evidence is kept all the time, everyday, in the real world? Who in the hell voted for this dumb hag anyway? Jesus wept.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)alp227
(32,025 posts)but if so then why make it a crime to abort pregnancies that resulted from rape???
oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)that New Mexico has a democratic legislature... this bill will not pass
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)incidentally, couldn't the results of an abortion be DNA tested as well as a full-term baby?
hlthe2b
(102,279 posts)elleng
(130,914 posts)which only becomes apparent how long after insemination???
niyad
(113,315 posts)her email is overloaded. doesn't matter whether it stands a chance of passing, what an unbelievably ignorant piece of crap bill.
glad to see you side with the rapists, cath.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)struggle4progress
(118,285 posts)will be needed as evidence of the crime! And if a thug stabs you, don't go to emergency room: your lifeless body will be needed as evidence of the crime!
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Thank you for giving me a chance to laugh at this--as black humored as that had to be.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)barbtries
(28,795 posts)sickening. republicans get worse and worse somehow.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)How people resist the urge to punch such idiots until the stupid is gone is a marvel in self-control.
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)Address: 1814 N. Guadalupe Street
Carlsbad, NM 88220
Capitol Phone: (505) 986-4248
Capitol Room #: 206B
Office Phone: (575) 302-2746
E-mail: cath@cathrynnbrown.com
niyad
(113,315 posts)SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)That's like saying taking a bullet out of a gun shot victim is "tampering with evidence."
niyad
(113,315 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Hey Rep. Cathrynn Brown (Puke Party)...instead of "charging a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence"...I would rather just give you a swift KICK in the ASS!
...that's just to let you know that you are STOOPID!
CarmanK
(662 posts)The New Mexico legislature should be ashamed of itself for even allowing such proposed laws into the hopper. Do they not know how obnoxious their behavior is.
TlalocW
(15,383 posts)Seems to me that's how it would work out then.
TlalocW
kiranon
(1,727 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)Do they have to keep it in a big baggie to avoid contaminating it?
Somehow I don't think this has been thought out too well,
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Orrex
(63,213 posts)She'd leave the knife in her jugular until the suspect's trial is completed?
Otherwise she's tampering with evidence.
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)Makes 'binders full of women' sound almost reasonable.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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 title analysis of the bill is flawed. This does not target the rape victim. It MIGHT target the doctor that performs it, if it goes into law as it is written.
Check the bold bits. So if a father raped his 12 year old daughter, got her pregnant, and then forced her to have an abortion, the way I read that, this makes HIM the criminal, not the pregnant girl. If the victim sought the abortion on her own, there is no clear intent to destroy evidence, no coercion, no compulsion, this statute would be unenforceable.
I would think this is a win, in the case where the rapist has some form of control over the victim, and in cases where a woman herself seeks an abortion to eliminate a pregnancy that resulted from her being raped, the statute looks powerless.
There MIGHT be a challenge around 'intent to destroy evidence', I could see some fuckhead trying to abuse that to apply it to anyone seeking an abortion after a rape, but the letter of the law appears aimed at rapists that exert some control over the victim, like a child, or abuse victim that lives with the abuser.
The other risky bit looks like the 'facilitating' piece, which might be abused to target an abortion provider that didn't KNOW the victim of the rape was being coerced into the abortion by the abuser.
If that language could be cleaned up a bit, the end result is no chilling effect on women seeking abortion to eliminate a pregnancy resulting from a rape, and piling on charges to the rapist if in the case of coercion. Hell, it's ALMOST reasonable as the language stands now. Highly unusual for a republican source.
Edit: I suppose it might also be problematic around the victim seeking an abortion to eliminate a pregnancy without ever reporting the rape to the police... Still, one could easily claim duress if the rapist has some control over the victim's life/safety/well being.
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)normally procure their own abortions. Agree they'd have a hard time with that 'intent to destroy evidence' since most pregnant rape victims intent is to end the pregnancy.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)At least the first few times, as rape victims are hauled into court under this statute to 'explain themselves'.
The greatest glaring risk would be victims seeking abortions without having reported the rape to the police.
The law does need some re-wording, but I wholly endorse the naked idea of targeting people who force a rape victim into an abortion with the intent to conceal the rape. I think this law is just badly worded.
Maybe I'm a little naïve too, as I find it hard to imagine someone would craft this law with the intent of having a chilling effect on abortion in the case of rape overall, but I suppose it's possible.
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Needs a total re-write.
Malicious by intent? Ugh. That's a horrid thought, but you're right, it is a possible motive.
niyad
(113,315 posts)hate-filled attacks on women's autonomy, you don't seriously believe this bill was about coercion from a rapist? the ONLY bill in years that ISN"T a direct attack on women's reproductive and bodily autonomy?
unfortunately, I have been around this battle for too many decades to believe anything like that.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)Let's get rid of the idiot legislator who actually put this exceedingly fucked up shit down on paper and then had the half-baked idea it would make a good bill to present to the state legislature. Who put her into office? She, and they, all need to be rounded up and given some quiet time because they are in desperate need of psychiatric intervention. Even if I didn't vote for her but lived in her district I would be horrified if people knew she was my state representative. It's embarrassing someone this stupid actually won an election. I gotta find out who her ran against her and didn't get more votes. They must have gotten caught with a dead body and a kilo of heroin in a whorehouse to lose an election to her. Or her opponent was a bunion on someone's left foot. Christ on a pony.
niyad
(113,315 posts)of NM. another poster indicated that her district seems to have a lot of crazies in it.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)There must be enough sane people living there already or who might move there to get rid of her. And sometimes the crazies will say, hey, that idea's a little too crazy for even us crazy people to put up with.
booley
(3,855 posts)just get rid of the
I think few would have a problem with prosecuting someone who forced another to have an abortion
But this bill goes beyond that.
The nicest thing we can say is it was poorly thought out.
bamacrat
(3,867 posts)Couldn't they keep what was aborted? Like in a jar or something. Then the DNA would still be there. Fucked up law.
Solly Mack
(90,767 posts)allan01
(1,950 posts)gee. i wonder what would happen if states made it against the law for men to have their tubes cut . hmmm?
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)Smilo
(1,944 posts)actually I don't think it is that much.
Where the hell do the right come up with these twisted and inane ideas for attacking women?
iandhr
(6,852 posts)NightOwwl
(5,453 posts)I don't think there is anything legal about it.
Sounds more like slavery to me.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)District: 55
County: Eddy
Representative Since: 2011
Occupation: Attorney
Address: 1814 N. Guadalupe Street
Carlsbad, NM 88220
Capitol Phone: (505) 986-4248
Capitol Room #: 206B
Office Phone: (575) 302-2746
Home Phone:
E-mail: cath@cathrynnbrown.com
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legdetails.aspx?SPONCODE=HBROW
51ST LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, 2013
INTRODUCED BY
Cathrynn N. Brown
...
B. Tampering with evidence shall include procuring
or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another
(page break)
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.
...
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0206.pdf
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session.aspx?chamber=H&legtype=B&legno=%20206&year=13
Bills sponsored by Cathrynn N. Brown:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/BillDisplay.aspx?SponsorCode=HBROW&year=13
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)How do they get evidence of rape where conception doesn't happen? I suppose giving the victim the Morning After Pill to prevent a pregnancy would be tampering too, right?????
marshall
(6,665 posts)I think that is the silver lining intent of the bill, but it should be made clear that the girl or woman herself is not meant to be a target.
Even before Roe the women who got an abortion and had to go to the hospital because they would die if they didn't rarely if ever were charged with a crime. They wanted the people doing them, doctors or not. Abortion laws never target pregnant women. We are the poor little victims who can't speak for ourselves so the very benevolent Government has to make our decisions for us and protect us from the big bad baby-killing Planned Parenthood, or whatever.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...They double down on the suckage.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)What do they need the baby for? If it's DNA, why can't the rape kit suffice?
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and that's the kindest thing I can say about her.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and now are headed for the center of the earth. Fortunately it is molten and they will be incinerated when they hit paydirt, err, lava.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)a woman's vagina, but squeal like stuck hogs at any modest attempt to implement sensible gun-control measures. The cumulative damage these groups have inflicted on America, its people and government, is immeasurable.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Who pays to feed the evidence, if the woman is unable to? Who pays for the shelter of the evidence if the woman is homeless? Homeless women are raped you know. I don't think she thought this through at all.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Since when is the baby evidence of rape? I thought the evidence was collected during a medical exam following the rape accusation?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)niyad
(113,315 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)LarryNM
(493 posts)It has a high per capita of hate and crazy. Attitudes, even in public, are just unbelievable. Those with a heart and sanity generally stay low and watch their backs.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)Fetal DNA can be found in the mother's blood. Just take a blood sample before the procedure.
http://www.ibtimes.com/scientists-decipher-babys-dna-sequence-just-mothers-blood-dads-dna-not-useful-721331
brooklynite
(94,572 posts)If they're not "protecting" the "evidence", it's not useable in Court.
butterflygirl
(44 posts)Why? Because they will fear if they become pregnant they will have to have the baby. They do not report, the rapist will know he got away with it and will continue to rape again and again and again.
I can just see the billboard as you enter New Mexico:
WELCOME TO NEW MEXICO, THE RAPE STATE!
What a sad state of affairs.
niyad
(113,315 posts)utter stupidity and woman-hating.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)That is fucking sickening. They will try anything at all.. anything.. For the many reasons pointed out above it wouldn't work or get passed, but even coming up with that idea is fucked up.
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,459 posts)Lawyers Rape Evidence Law Should Probably Be Aborted
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/01/lawyers-rape-evidence-law-should-probably-be-aborted/
28 Jan 2013 at 2:36 PMAbortion, Politics, Rape
Lawyers Rape Evidence Law Should Probably Be Aborted
By Elie Mystal
On last weeks episode of Republicans Say The Darndest Things, we had a female Republican legislator out west proposing a bill that would criminalize abortions for victims of rape or incest.
But now New Mexico legislator Cathrynn Brown says that it was all a big mistake. She wanted to charge rapists who convince their victims to have abortions with tampering with evidence. Because apparently holding rapists accountable for their rapes isnt enough?
Brown is an attorney and claims a drafting error caused all this confusion. If you believe her, thats one hell of a typo that nine other New Mexico Republicans also missed .
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)duhneece
(4,113 posts)We all remember last week when Republican state legislator Rep. Cathrynn Brown introduced a bill that would charge rape survivors seeking an abortion with a felony, right?
And we all remember when she was promptly Internet shamed and removed all evidence of the bill from her website, posthaste?
Well, shes back. And so is the bill.
After finding out that the public doesnt take too kindly to putting rape survivors in jail, Rep. Brown amended the legislation. Now, instead of charging women who terminate a pregnancy caused by rape with tampering with evidence, the updated bill will charge state abortion providers. Why? For facilitating the destruction of evidence.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/new_mexico_lawmaker_resurrects_bill_making_abortion_after_rape_a_felony/?source=newsletter
She's from our part of the state, but we had a 'We Trust Women Commemoration of Roe v Wade Rally.
duhneece
(4,113 posts)Same time, same place, but we got our Special Events permit from the City Clerk approved Jan 3 so the TeaParty cancelled, fortunately.
My favorite, tho' she didn't really show this to the public (mostly just to us):