Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NM Rape/Incest Victims Charged With A Felony?  
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 day ago) and read 1956 times:

Yes, you read that right. Rape or incest VICTIMS in NM run the risk of being charged with a felony. That's if this Republican law maker in New Mexico has her way. Rep. Cathrynn Brown introduced House Bill 206 on Wednesday, which would make terminating a pregnancy caused by incest or rape a third-degree felony for “tampering with evidence,” which could carry three years in prison.

This is completely bizarre, even for a Republican. And that party wonders why they become an even bigger laughing stock as each day passes? A little over a month ago, their answer to our escalating number of gun deaths is to add more guns to the equation. Yesterday, they suggested charging victims of rape or incest with a 3-year felony. I can't wait to see what they come up with tomorrow!   

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/24/new_...r_rape_as_tampering_with_evidence/

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

What's next. Bullets may not be removed if you're shoot? Knifes must remain if you're stabbed. What are the rules in case of food poisoning? What happens if you barf?

At least NRA gives her an "A"


User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 1):
Bullets may not be removed if you're shot?

And if they are, will the surgeon be charged as an accessory to a crime?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 1890 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 2):
And if they are, will the surgeon be charged as an accessory to a crime?

And the hospital  


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6933 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

I wonder how many of these crazy politicians have adopted children born out of a rape. Or if they would be happy to have a children or grandchildren conceived that way.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

It seems a pretty repulsive concept, yet I do note the bill says "....with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime". Surely the default position would be that the intention would be simply not to want to continue a pregnancy that was forced upon you by a rapist, and any intent solely to destroy evidence of the crime would be highly problematic to prove, to say the least.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

In all seriousness, I find it appalling that anyone, much less an elected official would even think up something like this - not to mention actually attempt to get such a law passed. The word "certifiable" comes to mind with regard to Rep. Brown.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6933 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

RussianJet : reading the bill it seems badly worded indeed, probably because it's just a stunt. But the idea is to ban the abortions I'm sure, using in this case the pretext of "destroying evidence".


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3678 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):
It seems a pretty repulsive concept, yet I do note the bill says "....with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime". Surely the default position would be that the intention would be simply not to want to continue a pregnancy that was forced upon you by a rapist, and any intent solely to destroy evidence of the crime would be highly problematic to prove, to say the least.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 7):
"destroying evidence"

Terminate the pregnancy and keep a tissue sample just in case the state wants to confirm that the father was indeed the rapist, or whatever else they would want to keep "evidence" for. Problem solved. I can accept "pro-life" views, but keeping a baby because it is evidence sounds like a cruel joke to me.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20345 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 19 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 8):
but keeping a baby because it is evidence sounds like a cruel joke to me

Not a joke. Just cruel. Sick and cruel.


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 1801 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):

It seems a pretty repulsive concept, yet I do note the bill says "....with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime".

Bingo.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):
Surely the default position would be that the intention would be simply not to want to continue a pregnancy that was forced upon you by a rapist, and any intent solely to destroy evidence of the crime would be highly problematic to prove, to say the least.

It appears the law is meant to deter (in some small way) the father (incest perpetrator) from taking the victim to get an abortion, which would serve to protect him.

Once again a typical attempt at showing all Republicans as nuts. You can't just have an honest debate, can you - you just want to vilify and destroy those who disagree with you.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
Once again a typical attempt at showing all Republicans as nuts. You can't just have an honest debate, can you - you just want to vilify and destroy those who disagree with you.

Cut the crap. This is an attempt to make abortion less accessible. All Republicans aren't nuts, but this one sure seems like it.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently onlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6119 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

I don't think women would have too hard a time get that abortion, since they'd have no way to prove whether the rape was legitimate or not.   


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

Quoting N867DA (Reply 11):

Cut the crap. This is an attempt to make abortion less accessible. All Republicans aren't nuts, but this one sure seems like it.

I happen to be pro-choice, but I find nothing wrong with the proposed law. Again, you are trying to invent an image which isn't there. Yes, it abortion will be less accessible - to the sickos dragging their kid to an abortion clinic to get rid of the evidence. Not for anyone else.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 1757 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
dragging their kid to an abortion clinic to get rid of the evidence.

OK, I'll play. Assuming there is a state in the Nation that allows a parent to force their minor child to have their pregnancy terminated against their wishes , what's your spin, uh I mean take on the rape part of the bill? Is it there to stop the rapist from dragging his victim to the clinic to get rid of the evidence?

[Edited 2013-01-24 20:04:08]

User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4179 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 1746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
You can't just have an honest debate, can you - you just want to vilify and destroy those who disagree with you.

In a perfect world, I would be willing to take the law at face value and accept that it is intended solely to deter abortions for the purpose of destroying evidence, but after Republican elected officials elsewhere have, among other things, passed laws to impose unnecessary hospital-like standards on abortion clinics that day surgery centers don't have to meet, I have serious doubts.

I would be far more comfortable if the law had one more line similar to "no person choosing to terminate their own pregnancy shall be subject to this act." I simply do not trust a zealous Republican district attorney won't choose to investigate every woman who has an abortion to make sure no evidence is destroyed. Investigation is no prosecution, but it is a hassle nevertheless, and a form of intimidation in this case.

And yes, I read the act, it is actually pretty short.
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0206.html



[Edited 2013-01-24 20:47:15]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):
It seems a pretty repulsive concept, yet I do note the bill says "....with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime". Surely the default position would be that the intention would be simply not to want to continue a pregnancy that was forced upon you by a rapist, and any intent solely to destroy evidence of the crime would be highly problematic to prove, to say the least.

That really depends on how you define "destroy evidence of the crime". If you're going to look at a child as "evidence of a crime", then just the intent to get an abortion could be seen as intent to destroy evidence. I would not put it past prosecutors to try and argue that.

This would be something we could all support if it just said "Tampering with evidence shall include 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", with no mention of procuring or facilitating. But they just had to put those words in there for some unknown reason, and in doing so put rape victims through more legal hassle.

Under this law, a rapist could argue that a DNA test of the child would prove that he is not the father (even though he was), and then use those grounds to argue that the mother tampered with evidence by getting an abortion. We shouldn't stand for that sort of crap.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5786 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):

It seems a pretty repulsive concept, yet I do note the bill says "....with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime".

Bingo.

Ummm.... wouldn't that prevent a woman who has been raped (believes she may have been) from just going and getting an abortion? Quietly, on her own by her own desire? Technically the woman would be culpable under the law as it is written because she is intent on destroying that "evidence".

How do you avoid this?

This is probably a good way:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
"no person choosing to terminate their own pregnancy shall be subject to this act."

but will the bill's sponsors be willing to put such wording in writing?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6933 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

From the link the bill is a stunt that has no chance in hell since the house is Democrat, so I stick by my idea, it's just poorly written.

And I'd argue that a rapist that gets an abortion for his victim is actually doing something right for a change.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
Once again a typical attempt at showing all Republicans as nuts. You can't just have an honest debate, can you - you just want to vilify and destroy those who disagree with you.

Dreadnought, once again, you hit the nail right on the head !

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
I happen to be pro-choice, but I find nothing wrong with the proposed law. Again, you are trying to invent an image which isn't there. Yes, it abortion will be less accessible - to the sickos dragging their kid to an abortion clinic to get rid of the evidence. Not for anyone else.

I haven't met Rep. Brown, and never even heard of her before, so I really can't say what I think of her for authoring this bill; however, I think the above reply is very likely to be the reason behind it.

Quoting itsjustme (Thread starter):
This is completely bizarre, even for a Republican.

"Even for a Republican"? That almost sounds like he thinks there's something wrong with Republicans !

( Because they don't agree with him )

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4064 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 1690 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Thread starter):
incest VICTIMS

How is someone a victim of incest? If the sex is not consensual it is rape, whether the perpetrator was a family member or a complete stranger. If the sex was consensual it might be an incest but there are no victims involved.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 14):
OK, I'll play. Assuming there is a state in the Nation that allows a parent to force their minor child to have their pregnancy terminated against their wishes , what's your spin, uh I mean take on the rape part of the bill? Is it there to stop the rapist from dragging his victim to the clinic to get rid of the evidence?

You don't think that a father/stepfather who managed to bully his way into a child's panties can't tell her to "walk in that clinic and take care of things, smile and if you mention me you die."?

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
I would be far more comfortable if the law had one more line similar to "no person choosing to terminate their own pregnancy shall be subject to this act."

Sometimes they are the perpetrator. Relatively rare but still happens.

Why would it make you more comfortable? It's not as if the staff at the clinic is going to police this.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 20):

How is someone a victim of incest? If the sex is not consensual it is rape, whether the perpetrator was a family member or a complete stranger. If the sex was consensual it might be an incest but there are no victims involved.

Ever heard of statutory rape?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4792 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 7 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Thread starter):
Rep. Cathrynn Brown introduced House Bill 206 on Wednesday, which would make terminating a pregnancy caused by incest or rape a third-degree felony for %u201Ctampering with evidence,%u201D which could carry three years in prison.

She is advancing an anti-abortion agenda and doing it disengenuously. This misgudied and ill informed person apparently believes you have to have a baby for evidence of a rape or incest. They have rape kits and DNA testing for that. It is a bill that will never see the light of day. She is about as dumb as the politician that said that raped women can't get pregnant. In fact she is contrdicting him.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1937 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 7 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
I happen to be pro-choice, but I find nothing wrong with the proposed law. Again, you are trying to invent an image which isn't there. Yes, it abortion will be less accessible - to the sickos dragging their kid to an abortion clinic to get rid of the evidence. Not for anyone else.

The mere act of getting the abortion is evidence enough. An embryo does not provide paternal DNA. The earliest that reliable DNA can be extracted is 10 weeks. I think that it is absurd to even suggest that this law is to protect women. That one sentence leaves the door too wide open for it to be used in a manner inconsistent with that. Personally I am skeptical with any new abortion legislation as all it does is restrict an already severely restricted area of women's rights.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 22):
She is advancing an anti-abortion agenda and doing it disengenuously. This misgudied and ill informed person apparently believes you have to have a baby for evidence of a rape or incest.

Whaaaaat? So a law saying that it is illegal to use a gun to rob a store makes it necessary to have a gun for the event to be classified as a robbery? Logical disconnect.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 22):
They have rape kits and DNA testing for that.

And if there is no rape kit done (very likely) and the abortion clinic does not keep a tissue sample of all abortions it performs?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 22):
She is about as dumb as the politician that said that raped women can't get pregnant. In fact she is contrdicting him.

Stop being so vile and try to make arguments that make sense.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 tugger : Speaking of disconnect, you did not answer my question: For whatever the myriad of reasons personally, not every woman wants to report a rape. Should
26 Dreadnought : If she simply does not want the baby, I see it as something entirely different. The proposed law specifies that it only applies to abortions made wit
27 tugger : And so if a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy does that not leave open the possibility of being charged? Perhaps she doesn't want to deal with
28 casinterest : So you are agreeing then that a baby isn't a baby till it is born? And therefore has no rights? So the mother gets a felony because of other people n
29 Mir : No, it says that it applies to abortions made with the intent of hiding evidence of incest or rape. Not specific intent, just general intent. There's
30 tugger : To my knowledge, Dreadnought is not be a foe of "the woman's right to choose" and supports a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, but with limits
31 bhill : Ahhh the machinations of doing end runs around Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to what she thinks is best for her uterus. I sure hope this "legislator
32 blueflyer : I don't expect clinic staff to police the act, but it would make it clear that it isn't a disguised attempt to limit access to abortion by trying to
33 Dreadnought : I'm sorry but that sounds like a red herring. By that measure, almost any law can be abused, and thus should not be passed.
34 Mir : If the potential abuse of the law is more serious than the behavior you're trying to ban, then you should not pass the law. I have a hard time believ
35 Dreadnought : I think Incest, rape, and hiding the evidence are pretty damned serious. But that's just me - you are free to disagree.
36 Mir : I think rape is pretty damn serious, as is hiding the evidence of it. And you'll note that I have no problem with the part of the law that says coerc
37 tugger : Then I disagree. At least with the tact you are taking. It is already a standard element in law and there are many specific laws on the books that st
38 Dreadnought : Glad we agree on that. Oooo, you might want to rephrase that. Basically you are saying that if they use birth control, hey, why not? As a parent, wit
39 itsjustme : As a seasoned law enforcement officer, you have me concerned. When you first came up with the idea the law was purposed "to stop a sicko from draggin
40 Mir : You didn't include the part where I said that doesn't make it okay. I'll never support two consenting adults engaging in incest even with birth contr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Indiana Female Teen Charged With Rape posted Tue Mar 28 2006 01:55:59 by AeroWesty
BA Pilot Charged With Wife's Murder posted Thu Nov 4 2010 11:55:08 by kaitak
Canadian Forces Colonel Charged With 2 Homicides posted Mon Feb 8 2010 16:05:53 by TheCol
Charged With Negligent Homicide. Cause? Religion posted Tue Jul 28 2009 20:25:42 by FuturePilot16
Friend Charged With Vehicular Manslaughter posted Mon Oct 13 2008 20:14:22 by MaverickM11
Man Charged With Passing Gas At Cop posted Thu Sep 25 2008 12:02:33 by Mike89406
Cat Transporter Charged With Theft & Cruelty posted Fri Aug 17 2007 02:43:06 by Ronglimeng
Girl, 11, Charged With DUI After Chase posted Sat Jul 7 2007 05:49:42 by TZ757300
Shirley Phelps Charged With Negligent Child Abuse posted Fri Jul 6 2007 17:34:56 by Trav110
Woman Charged With Making Faces At Police Dog posted Thu Jun 7 2007 12:08:58 by Airfoilsguy