Seriously? New Mexico Bill: Rape Victims Who Get An Abortion Will Be Charged With Tampering With The Evidence

Filed in National by on January 24, 2013

Yeah, it won’t pass, but… OMG!  Someone actually introduced this bill:

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.

You know, Republicans learned nothing from the November election.  Not one thing.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (46)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. John Berryhill says:

    Presumably, the victim will need to be tagged and checked in to the police evidence locker pending trial.

  2. pandora says:

    “Presumably, the victim will need to be tagged and checked in to the police evidence locker pending trial.”

    Right alongside all those murder victims who couldn’t be buried until the trial.

  3. Aoine says:

    Most ridiculous thing I have read from the Republicans I have heard, all day

    Of course a woman can have the abortion, the biological material can be preserved and / or the DNA testing easily done , biological materials disposed of and the results kept.

    What part of the Middle Ages did these fools come from.

    BEARING the child proves nothing except that the victim was victimized again. And what ? the child goes thru life knowing they are a simple rape by- product and not actually ever wanted?
    Or is the stupid clown that proposed this willing to take these children in?

  4. Independent says:

    Disgusting that any little opporunity is not spared to push an anti-abortion agenda.

    I do read the portion that seems to indicate that there need to be “intent to destroy evidence of the crime.”

    Presumably – this leaves a glimmer that this is not as simpleton as it seems?

    EDIT: found some better background: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-evidence-tampering/1862767/

  5. Michelle M says:

    So much for electing more women. We can be crazy too, unfortunately.

  6. pandora says:

    Yes, it is as simpleton as it seems. Here’s the bill:

    A. Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.

    B. 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.

    Notice the word or after the procuring/facilitating – which means that procuring (patient) could be charged.

    And look at what Ms. Oops is claiming now:

    Brown, an attorney who just began her second term, told the Carlsbad Current-Argus on Thursday that her bill was “badly drafted” and that she missed the possible interpretation when reviewing the language.

    “I missed this one,” she said.

    I don’t think she missed anything. Like the article you linked to writes: She just got caught, and now Ms. Brown, a flippin’ lawyer, is acting like she doesn’t know anything about the law.

  7. Independent says:

    Pandora – are you intentionally focusing on one portion of the sentence?

    I agree that it is poorly worded – but the sentence concludes with the indication “… with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.”

    Doesn’t this indicate that there may be some truth to her statement of the intent?

  8. pandora says:

    Doesn’t this indicate that there may be some truth to her statement of the intent?

    No.

    Poorly worded? Right, because Republicans haven’t been doing anything to redefine rape, or change abortion laws to make rape no longer an exception. Please.

    Procure means to obtain, to get so I’m not seeing where this bill applies only to the rapist. The woman getting – procuring – the abortion would be guilty under this law.

    Also, you don’t need to give birth to protect evidence. Science… it matters.

    This is simply nuts. Know why? Well, first SCIENCE. Second, if the woman reports a rape and names her attacker, giving birth wouldn’t be evidence. Why, when DNA evidence can be gathered without giving birth, would this even be part of the law?

    And if the woman was able of being coerced into an abortion by her rapist/relative then it’s extremely unlikely that she would be pressing charges. Seriously? A woman reports a rape/incest to the authorities and then goes off with her attacker to get an abortion? Again… seriously?

  9. Independent says:

    I completely agree that science matters and that there is no need to maintain a pregnancy to retain “evidence”.

    Because she is “R” – she must be Pro-Life? This is a stretch as it would be to say all D’s want to take all guns. Seems an oddly broad brush to me.

    You keep avoiding the last portion of the sentence the bill says: “… with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.” Thereby a woman could rightly make any choice she desires and maintain evidence – DNA or otherwise.

    I feel that if any woman were in a difficult situation – not knowing where to turn, that she might be compelled by an attacker (especially in cases of incest) to have an abortion and that the attacker might believe he could hide evidence.

    In addition, the woman may not have reported the crime – perhaps it was reported by another or found when a beaten woman was taken to the hospital – too afraid to get the help she deserves. Just because she doesn’t want to press charges – doesn’t mean that they wont – especially in cases where she is under legal age.

    Again – i think this last portion of the sentence is critical. It indicates to me there must be intent.

    Sounds as though it (poor wording) will be corrected as it should.

  10. pandora says:

    The last sentence doesn’t mean, or prove, anything, despite the fact that you keep acting like it does. A live birth is not evidence of rape.

    And a woman too afraid to come forward isn’t going to suddenly start pointing fingers at her rapist. So the rapist who convinces his victim to have an abortion (that has to be the dumbest argument ever made) would only be able to do so because the victim didn’t go to the police. See? Once the authorities get involved they wouldn’t need to submit a baby into evidence. This law is about limiting abortion, once again under the guise that the woman isn’t capable of making the decision without coercion.

    Do people really believe that a good portion of abortions are performed because a rapist made his victim have one… to destroy evidence? What world do people who think this live in?

    And Brown is pro-life.

  11. Independent says:

    BTW – The law is a clarification of an existing law about the tampering of evidence.

    If the last portion of the sentence means nothing than neither does the first part of the sentence – of course that is hogwash.

    You may want it to say something different – but it doesn’t – the sentence still concludes with “… with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.” If a woman wants to exercise her right to have an abortion she still has that right as she should.

  12. cassandra_m says:

    If this was about tampering with the evidence of the crime of rape, it would have been focused on the kind of evidence that law enforcement needs to make their case for said rape. By the time a victim knows she is pregnant (weeks later), that kind of evidence is long past gone (usually) and if there is a fetus now involved, an attacker (if he can be found) is now in the territory of claiming that it was all consensual. With no evidence available to countermand that.

    Intent and coercion are often difficult to prove. This bill was intended to make it harder to get an abortion. Because with this bill, providers are now in the business of trying to get to the business of the “intent” of the woman getting the abortion.

  13. Independent says:

    The statute that it is updating is clear – its about evidence. The argument that there is specificity needed as to the type of evidence needed creates a short-lived law inacapable of handling technology advancements.

    The evidence It seems to me they are referring to is the DNA evidence related to fetus – i.e. incest proven by matching DNA – I suppose it could also prove that the rapist is identified in non-incest cases as well. None of that is “long past”.

    I agree that intent is hard to prove and supports the position that a victim could get an abortion and not be convicted – this is about intent and coercion by the perp.

    Lastly – the bill says nothing about a providers responsibility as you state.

  14. pandora says:

    Exactly. This is a glorified paternity test and forced birth under the guise of “protecting” the little woman. This will not prove rape… not one bit – and it was never intended to.

  15. cassandra_m says:

    I suggest you get up to speed on what evidence is collected in a rape kit AND why. DNA is just one part. Specificity would have given this BS some weight in what evidence it wanted preserved. Because a fetus isn’t evidence.

    The bill doesn’t have to say anything about providers. But if this is about proving “intent” and “coercion”, who do you think is going to be in the crosshairs of providing information on that?

  16. pandora says:

    I think a doctor could be viewed as a facilitator.

    The evidence It seems to me they are referring to is the DNA evidence related to fetus – i.e. incest proven by matching DNA – I suppose it could also prove that the rapist is identified in non-incest cases as well. None of that is “long past”.

    One more time, the only thing a forced birth proves is that people had sex. It does not prove rape or incest. In fact, the DNA evidence you’re referring to could be obtained by an abortion. Think about that.

  17. Independent says:

    Some of these are red herrings to me but I will give my impression of all:

    We all know there are far too many woman scared, ashamed and traumatized by rape dont come forward at first and unfortunately some not at all. In these cases – there is no opportunity to have a rape kit used. In these cases – beyond their assertion there is precious little “evidence”. In these cases, what is left is, sadly, the DNA of the fetus.

    As in the terrible Catholic Preist cases – we know that even after the rape – the perps maintain a terrible power over those they victimize – in some instances until there is little evidence. If such power were used to coerce an abortion (obvioulsy the intention is to among other things) hide the truth about same – wouldnt it be appropriate to create a law to protect against it?

    I find nothing that indicates the fetus must be preserved – it simply indicates that a fetus is evidence of a crime. In addition without the fetus et al., there is no DNA to prove the “father”.

    The sentence concludes: “… with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.” If, as you assert, one can not prove intent – then a woman’s right cant be affected regardless and she is free to exercise her right.

    The idea that you now read into law about providers – says you may interpret the bill – but others may not? Providers are not trying to hide evidence of a rape – why would they be guilty of anything?

    I still agree that the wording is poor and should be corrected but this seems to be obvious red-meat when nothing in this legislators background supports the attack – expecially when the day after thebill is introduced she explains the intent and plans an ammendment to fix the confusion. Do you think that she just thought it would sale through a deomcratically control legislature unnoticed? Seems a stretch to me.

  18. Independent says:

    Pandora – Perhaps you miss my point.

    First I dont believe there is forced birth here – nothing states that – only that a woman cant be coerced to abort.

    Second, if a rape/incest isnt reported expeditiously – then the DNA of the fetus ABSOLUTELY proves if there was incest and who the father is.

    Third – I agree that the evidence can be gained by an abortion and why I maintain that a womnan has her rights as she should to get an abortion. But if the abortion is coerced and if that abortion takes place without evidence be collected – then the “evidence” get smaller. This law seems to attempt to make that coercion/forced abortion the crime.

  19. cassandra_m says:

    We all know there are far too many woman scared, ashamed and traumatized by rape dont come forward at first and unfortunately some not at all. In these cases – there is no opportunity to have a rape kit used.

    We aren’t going to get very far when all you are going to do is just repeat what we already know.

    The issue here is the preservation of evidence (not on paternity) which we do not think this bill does. The reason we think that is that we know what evidence is collected and how it is used. You do not. Because if you understood this basic point, you’d get that a prosecutor certainly won’t be taking any rape cases just on that evidence.

  20. pandora says:

    And don’t think I haven’t noticed how your argument has evolved from “with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime” to solely focusing on incest.

    If a victim of rape or incest doesn’t become pregnant then what other evidence would you submit? Hint: This is as easy answer and it applies to all reported cases. But your scenarios always seem to involve someone, other than the victim, stumbling – in Scooby Doo fashion – onto a crime.

    One of the biggest tragedies of rape is that it’s not reported when evidence can be gathered. And I’m not comfortable with a pregnant woman being able to prove rape by a paternity test.

  21. Independent says:

    I mean no focus on incest – it just seems to make the point in easier fashion than a more intense discussion and all the distractions of detail creating a muddled mess arguing hypotheticals. Incest seems absolute – my reason for using it.

    Cassandra – please dont lecture me on telling you what you know – you did the same when you suggested the rape kit. I used the example to frame the response as to why the evidence of the fetus (in my mind DNA/Paternity) is critical to being preserved as you likely did in suggesting there are alternate ways to get “evidence”. I dont mean that it must be preserved as in the woman must give birth – only that a woman cant be forced to do something she doesnt want to do or perhaps doesnt understand if she were impressionable, etc.

    I still believe that if read with the intent section included – there is little to suggest this is an impediment to a woman’s choice. I support a woman’s choice – end of story – and dont want impediments to it.

    The evidence (to me) is the paternity. This seems to point directly to supporting any allegation that a woman makes and takes the he-said/she-said argument out of the mix (in incest) and shifts the burdon to the rapist in cases of rape. Simple examples seem to support it – perhaps an allegation that it (rape, intercource) never happaned by the perp – then she later finds she is pregnant – certainly the fetus is now evdience that it did happen and the burdon is off the young woman already dealing with being a victim.

    If you read the statute that this ammends and those abutting it – they truly seem focused on reducing the chance that a “bad guy” can tamper with evidence.

    Pandora makes a good point that paternity alone does not prove rape and of course should not be the only indication. This arguement will hopefully be made in NM and they address same.

    The idea of scooby doo style – I reject this. As somone that spent time working in the ER in my youth, it is astonishing what can and does happen as tests are run, emotions spill over, and the truth becomes known. But honestly, I dont want this to be the argument for support. I believe there are a multitude of ways that a woman gets to the point of rape being reported.

    I simply see this as a more honest mistake in wording that can be corrected – but a concept that seems to protect victimized women.

    I was even more intrigued when I looked at the bills the woman (Brown) sponsored previously – none seemed to betray that she would suddently try to slip one past the many she knew would have to read it. But it gets called out as an example of Right Wing attacks on women? Cretainly they happen, but this isnt a case of it.

  22. pandora says:

    I was even more intrigued when I looked at the bills the woman (Brown) sponsored previously – none seemed to betray that she would suddently try to slip one past the many she knew would have to read it. But it gets called out as an example of Right Wing attacks on women? Cretainly they happen, but this isnt a case of it.

    That is your opinion, and only your opinion. But let’s look at this representative:

    1. CATHRYNN BROWN, R-CARLSBAD, is a Carlsbad lawyer practicing transactional (the body of law that governs transactions between individuals or corporations). Her husband, Mike, is an engineer who works for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

    Although her recent campaign, in which she defeated House Democratic caucus Chairman John Heaton, was her first run for public office, Brown has been active for years in politics. She served two terms as Eddy County GOP chairwoman and has been on the board of Right to Life of Carlsbad, an anti-abortion group.

    Brown said in a recent interview that she’s a skeptic on global warming. “I believe it’s now a discredited theory,” she said. “I believe Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth was helpful. It gave us sources to evaluate, It was helpful in debunking the theory.”

    Asked about the Rail Runner, she said the state should consider selling the railroad to a private company and put the proceeds into the state general fund.

    2. Check out her Facebook page and you’ll find lots of life begins at conception stuff.

    I would say that she is part of the pro-life/climate change deniers right wing. If you disagree, please provide evidence. Links please.

  23. Independent says:

    I dont have facebook account but did try to take a look – cant seem to get it if one doesnt have an account…asked me to log in.

    Check out the bills sponsored (that I talked about above) here: http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legdetails.aspx?SPONCODE=HBROW

    She changed the wording on the bill: http://cathrynnbrown.com/page.php?t=hb_206

    Do you agree with the new wording?

  24. pandora says:

    Love, love, love her reasonable bills you cite! LOL! Enduring Greatness of the Constitution Bill? And a couple of Voter ID bills? Oh yeah, no wingnut here.

    And I don’t agree with the new wording. The entire bill needs to go away.

  25. Independent says:

    Now your just trying to be difficult…

    That Right Wing Nut Bill you stated was voted Yea 62 to 1 in a Democrat controlled House. LOL right back at you…

  26. pandora says:

    Nope. Sponsoring a bill on the Enduring Greatness of the Constitution is pure wingnut fluff – like sponsoring a bill to not kick puppies and American flag lovin’. Fluff that everyone votes for because it’s useless and easy, and if they don’t then they’ll have their patriotism questioned. Complete nonsense.

  27. cassandra_m says:

    The evidence (to me) is the paternity.

    A fetus is not evidence of rape, which is what we are discussing and which is what you are supposedly preserving evidence for. And you still don’t know what gets collected in a rape kit and why. Seriously, you could stop looking like a fool here by just going off to get some basic knowledge.

    So you can dance around all you like, the bottom line is that you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about here.

  28. Independent says:

    Like HJR 10, HJR11? Joint and concurrent resolutions of all types?

    I provide you a list that shows no radical agenda – you pick on a feel good bill that every state legislature does as an example of her radical agenda? Comical.

    I hope you keep an eye out for our legislature and call them on the ones they’ve done and will do this session…

  29. pandora says:

    And this bill, even with the new wording, will require that someone, most likely doctors, determine the intent of the woman seeking an abortion.

    It’s another potential 3rd degree law that will make every woman have to “prove” that she is there at her own free will, and if the doctor (or whoever will determine her reasoning) feels (for whatever reason) the woman didn’t “prove” her case then I guess she could be denied/delayed an abortion until they figure out if she was coerced. It’s just another obstacle, and that’s the point.

  30. Independent says:

    Cassandra – you miss it again… if no rape kit is used it NEVER matters.

  31. Independent says:

    The bill doesnt make a woman prove a thing to get an abortion.

  32. pandora says:

    And if a rape kit is used then evidence is collected. Pregnancy won’t change that or make the evidence stronger.

    “The bill doesnt make a woman prove a thing to get an abortion.”

    How do you figure that? If the woman files rape charges… then I’m not seeing a scenario where her accused rapist can influence her and if it’s a charge of incest then the minor is removed from the home and out from under the control of the accused.

    In order for this bill to work the last line of “defense” would be the doctor performing the abortion – because the woman had not gone to the authorities after the rape – you know, to submit evidence.

    So… this bill seems to address women who haven’t reported the crime. Right? Because if they had reported it steps would be taken long before a pregnancy was discovered. So who exactly do you see violating this proposed law? Obviously, a woman who hasn’t reported the rape before she found out she was pregnant. Which then brings us full circle – a pregnancy is not proof of a rape.

  33. Independent says:

    At the risk of being lectured on what you know – I am not saying you do or don’t know – My position as presented presumed there is no rape kit and no ability to get one. Hence the conversation regarding how some women don’t come forward until much later or sometimes not at all.

    I don’t know all scenarios but two I envision are:

    A young woman coming forward when she finds herself pregnant – 6-8 weeks after an attack. This bill updates the evidence to say that her attacker cant try and get her to have an abortion and therefore try to eliminate the evidence of same.

    An impressionable woman is pressured to have an abortion, her attacker is her father and upon finding out she is pregnant – has her get an abortion to eliminate the fetus.

    It seems to me the law attempts to say – you cant force the young woman to have an abortion to hide the evidence that there was penetration resulting in a fetus. In the case on incest – there is no doubt what the fetus will show.

    In the case of rape – it is not the smoking gun but as I explained my thought above – one more element to support at least a portion of the story.

    The last line of defense seems to me to be an enforcement issue – certainly not the doctors responsibility. As i mentioned above there are lots of laws in effect that are difficult to enforce – many seem to be enacted to assist AG and prosecutors in having tools at their disposal to prosecute to the fullest.

    In all honesty – having a law doesn’t prevent someone for example from fabricating evidence – it just makes it illegal. My position is that this is only strengthening a law (30-22-5 Tampering With Evidence) to include attempting to make it illegal to further victimize a woman. if she wants the abortion – this law doesnt come in to play it seems to me.

  34. cassandra_m says:

    My position as presented presumed there is no rape kit and no ability to get one.

    In which case, you are largely SOL in terms of prosecuting anyone for said rape without other evidence (like eyewitnesses or something more solid than a fetus). Seriously. How much foolishness are you going to be putting on display here before actually going off to educate yourself just a little?

    This law doesn’t even attempt to preserve any evidence that is actually useful to a prosecutor in a rape case.

  35. pandora says:

    Can you explain these two comments of yours?

    1.”Cassandra – you miss it again… if no rape kit is used it NEVER matters.”

    2. “My position as presented presumed there is no rape kit and no ability to get one.”

    Moving on…

    A young woman coming forward when she finds herself pregnant – 6-8 weeks after an attack. This bill updates the evidence to say that her attacker cant try and get her to have an abortion and therefore try to eliminate the evidence of same.

    What EVIDENCE is being “updated” if she only comes forward 6-8 weeks after the attack?

    In the case of rape – it is not the smoking gun but as I explained my thought above – one more element to support at least a portion of the story.

    No! No! No! You cannot use pregnancy to support anything more than sex occurred. It does not prove rape. Seriously, merge your sentences: A women reports the rape once she discovers she’s pregnant and the pregnancy supports part of the story that she was raped.

    The last line of defense seems to me to be an enforcement issue – certainly not the doctors responsibility.

    Then whose responsibility is it? Do we position law enforcement outside her house to make sure someone doesn’t try to drag her off to get an abortion? Do we tap her phone? Or are you relying on the “poor, frightened impressionable” woman to enforce the continuation of her pregnancy? (That’s the correct answer, btw. You know, woman’s decision either way.)

    This idea that women are being forced into having abortions by their rapists is completely nuts.

  36. Cassandra M says:

    Nuts indeed. It is just one more stalking horse to interfere with women’s health care choices.

  37. pandora says:

    And what about the rapist who insists a woman have his baby? Hey, since we’re in fantasy land why aren’t we addressing this? Notice how this crap always goes in only one direction? Yeah, me too.

  38. anon says:

    You need to listen to Sussex County radio where now we learn it’s a woman’s fault she’s raped because she isn’t armed.

  39. Aoine says:

    OMG- just keep your dick in your pants! How hard can that be

    Talk about going down the rabbit hole and tea with the Mad Hatter!

    When was the last time a rapist carried off his victim for an abortion? They ONLY circumstance I can imagine this was in would be the case of incest. Where a person in a position of control or authority forces his hi rim under his control to have an abortion to hide the crime.

    That said one point no one hit on is when the victim REPORTS the rape. Even if there is no evidence of Penetration, as in vaginal/ anal penetration by either a body part or other object the victim can still report the crime

    There does not need to be vaginal/ anal treats consistent with forced penetration, or epithelial cells, or body fluids, saliva, sperm etc, not tissue tearing , not bruising in and surround the vagina/-anus…,,,

    The victim can report the crime YEARS later with no physical evidence whatsoever…

    One word folks:

    BODENWEISER

    ought to illustrate the point sufficiently here.

    That whole stupid bill is just that….stupid. It’s clearly a way to limit abortion.

    Independent just wants to play games….been the bills sponsor is back- pedaling.

    She clearly has NO idea about rape and the ins and outs of what is considered evidence , both physical, testimonial and circumstantial.

    Give it up ! OR lets pass a law outlawing organized religion….after all, that’s where the pedophiles seem to hide

  40. Independent says:

    It is quite a contradiction – DelawareLiberal is likely the most detailed and educated Delaware online political presence – yet you are not looking at the details of this issue:

    1. The Bill – is a one paragraph update to an existing law. If you read this any other way – you are wrong. The original link shows that and what is updated in the bill is underlined. Therefore, the conversation regarding “evidence”.

    2. There are so many laws that are intended to protect a portion of the whole. That is to say that no one here believes that all victims will need this protection. I repeatedly used incest as I see this the most likely application of the law.

    3. The sponsor of the Bill – immediately responded to the concerns – updated the bill to say that no woman would or could be further victimized by this Bill. Unfortunately – some would rather use this as Red-meat. Anyway you cut it – nothing in the updated wording suggests a woman could be charged with a crime if she decides to have an abortion.

    4. I submitted to you – and was lectured about telling you what you already know how some women dont come forward initially. So please tell me what good you think a Rape Kit does 1+ weeks from the attack. Therefore – if there isnt opportunity to collect evidence initially – it never matters what eveidence a Rape kit can collect. It doesnt matter that it is so much better than any other secondary evidence. BTW – No one believes that without this – all hope is lost – but to use a serial rapist as an example as to how this isnt needed? Strange indeed. If this protects only a handful of women – great by me – especially since the wording has been updated.

    So while you want to attack the originally poorly worded 1 paragraph update to an existing Bill regarding Evidence of a crime – I want to look at what this might mean to being able to prosecute a small percentage of the attackers that might try and force their victim to have an abortion to save themselves and hide evidence.

    I am against limiting women’s choice in any event and read in context this update to evidence law that it seems to try and protect woman from being further victimized – the original wording was flawed but has been corrected. At any rate – if you arent going to look at this with an open mind – I’m no longer interested in trying to illustrate a different perspective.

  41. cassandra_m says:

    It isn’t a contradiction. We *are* looking at the details of this issue, and you are here ignoring the points made in order to just keep dancing away from your own positions.

    As in asking about rape kits a week after the assault. None of us have been talking about that — we *are* talking specifically about what evidence is collected in a rape kit and why? Because if you understood those two things, you would get why this fetus preservation business as evidence is so stupid and useless.

    What does this mean? It means that you, Independent, is the one who doesn’t have the open mind, because you won’t even educate yourself on a topic that you clearly need better information on.

  42. pandora says:

    Notice how Independent hasn’t addressed any of the points made. Here’s one.

    He also doesn’t address the flip side… what if a rapist/someone guilty of incest insists on the woman carrying their baby – and she wants to abort? If that sounds nuts… then you’ll get it. These laws only ever go in one direction.

    Note also, that Independent does a lot of interpreting of what the law means.

  43. jaded cynic says:

    Perhaps this introduction was a “trial balloon”. It was “clarified” after it got some bad reaction, but the GOP law maker always want to know how far they cant go. It was proposed in New Mexico where it had no chance of being signed into law, but got enough national attention for them to gauge how it would be received.
    There is no question in my mind this is intended to, at the very least, scare lower-informed women away from making the best choice for themselves. It is like all the misinformation about voting. You create a fear in people that they might be punished or get in trouble, then they stay home on election day, or carry a baby to term that was the product of rape.

  44. pandora says:

    Jaded Cynic is correct.

  45. cassandra_m says:

    Yes, jaded cynic. This is how these crazy ideas get laundered into other statehouses. Others will certainly refine this idea, and then we’ll have folks wondering what’s the harm in it? All the while further restricting women’s choices here.

  46. pandora says:

    … In the name of “protecting women” who can’t possibly make those decisions on their own. Gotta protect those little ladies from the bad guy and themselves. Hey, how about a law that makes a woman’s sexual history, how many drinks she had and what she was wearing out of bounds in a court of law? Don’t hear a word about that, now do ya? This is about sex. It’s always about sex. Good girls would want to keep their babies. Bad girls abort. It really is that simple.

    This law is more than nonsense and 100% useless. It’s offensive.

Switch to our mobile site