US Rape-abortion bill causes uproar
BartSimpson @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:22 pm
Looking at the 'offending passage' I'm not seeing where it 'clearly' says a rape victim cannot obtain her own abortion.
$1:
"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."
Let's dissect this, shall we?
Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating
Procuring is done on behalf of someone else. Facilitating, arguably, could be done for oneself, but in context with the word procuring leads to concluding that the facilitation would be done by someone other than the victim.
I'll note that it is poorly written, but it does not 'clearly' prohibit a victim from obtaining an abortion.
or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion
I'd say that's pretty clear. Arguments, anyone?
of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.
Covering up evidence is a crime in any other circumstance so I guess I'm wondering if this law addresses a loophole in NW law that allows rapists to do this kind of thing?
In any case, the bill is not a law and the wording can be revised before it goes to a floor vote. I simply do not see the major issue here except to those who grasp at any reason to hate Republicans.
2Cdo @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:24 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Let me clarify for 2Cdo and Bart:
The purpose of this bill is to:
1) Initimidate doctors, who may face criminal charges if they perform an abortion on a rape victim
2) Intimidate women, who may be forced to answer questions about how their pregnancy was conceived.
With the ultimate goal of deterring abortions.
This bill is not being introduced to address some problem with lack of babies as "evidence" in rape cases. Its a bill by admitted and known anti-abortionists to limit abortion. Period.
The purpose of this bill is to:
1) Initimidate doctors, who may face criminal charges if they perform an abortion on a rape victim
2) Intimidate women, who may be forced to answer questions about how their pregnancy was conceived.
With the ultimate goal of deterring abortions.
This bill is not being introduced to address some problem with lack of babies as "evidence" in rape cases. Its a bill by admitted and known anti-abortionists to limit abortion. Period.
I guess you didn't read the part where it was going to get the wording sorted out to allow the woman to get an abortion after a rape or an act of incest that resulted in a pregnancy.
The purpose of your post was to smear all Republicans, nothing more.
BartSimpson @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:24 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
It's a bill, not a law, and this can be easily resolved in committee. Instead there's some dirty b@stard using this (as a stretch) to make political hay at a Republican's expense.
It would appear that the Democrat Speaker of the House would agree:
Speaker of House defends state rep who introduced rape and incest bill
$1:
The Democratic Speaker of the House came to the defense of Republican state Rep. Cathrynn Brown of Eddy County after liberal groups, bloggers and websites attacked her for a bill concerning rape that Rep. Brown says has been badly misconstrued.
"If she says it wasn’t her intention (to ignite a controversy), I will take her at her word," Speaker W. Ken Martinez (D-Grant) said Thursday. "She’s a good person."
"If she says it wasn’t her intention (to ignite a controversy), I will take her at her word," Speaker W. Ken Martinez (D-Grant) said Thursday. "She’s a good person."
Thank you.
2Cdo @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:26 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I simply do not see the major issue here except to those who grasp at any reason to hate Republicans.
The sole reason for BF posting this. Evident by his "Republicans for Rape" comment.
Psudo @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:43 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Brenda Brenda:
Who the hell ever thought that a fetus is evidence, is out of their mind, btw.
Because it's utterly unheard of to use genetic evidence to prosecute a crime, right?Abortion ought to be available for every rape victim who chooses it.
That said, I agree that the bill is an example of bad wording, not evil intent.
Brenda @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:36 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Brenda Brenda:
Who the hell ever thought that a fetus is evidence, is out of their mind, btw.
Because it's utterly unheard of to use genetic evidence to prosecute a crime, right?
Rape kits do not include fetuses, unborn babies' DNA, DNA taken from miscarriages etc etc.
Seriously, Bart, have your head examined. Rape is bad enough. Having to undergo a rape kit examination is worse. Having to deal with anymore bs, including "keeping an aborted (whether by a doctor or natural causes) fetus for evidence" is torture. Which is, for as far as I know, illegal.
Brenda @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:37 pm
Psudo Psudo:
That said, I agree that the bill is an example of bad wording, not evil intent.
So do I.
BeaverFever @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:59 pm
2Cdo 2Cdo:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Let me clarify for 2Cdo and Bart:
The purpose of this bill is to:
1) Initimidate doctors, who may face criminal charges if they perform an abortion on a rape victim
2) Intimidate women, who may be forced to answer questions about how their pregnancy was conceived.
With the ultimate goal of deterring abortions.
This bill is not being introduced to address some problem with lack of babies as "evidence" in rape cases. Its a bill by admitted and known anti-abortionists to limit abortion. Period.
The purpose of this bill is to:
1) Initimidate doctors, who may face criminal charges if they perform an abortion on a rape victim
2) Intimidate women, who may be forced to answer questions about how their pregnancy was conceived.
With the ultimate goal of deterring abortions.
This bill is not being introduced to address some problem with lack of babies as "evidence" in rape cases. Its a bill by admitted and known anti-abortionists to limit abortion. Period.
I guess you didn't read the part where it was going to get the wording sorted out to allow the woman to get an abortion after a rape or an act of incest that resulted in a pregnancy.
The purpose of your post was to smear all Republicans, nothing more.
I guess you didn't catch on that it was only sent to be 'reworked' after conroversy and that this still doesn't appear to address Doctors, who are stil lnot off the hook in the re-write