Abortion Bill Would Force Rape Victims To Continue Pregnancy As 'Evidence'

[Mormolyce]

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."

How is a fetus brought to term more evidence than the pregnancy itself? The majority of sexual intercourse doesn't result in a pregnancy anyway... so why is there an added burden for rape victims who fall pregnant compared to those that don't?

Why am I bothering to analyse this retarded insane troll logic?

Infracted: Please post respectfully and do not insult other users

[slackjawsix]

it is my understanding then when a rape is legitimate the body has a way of just shutting down the pregnancy... lol jk
cant the abortion be evidence?

[Mormolyce]

What if the woman is the rapist? Could she be forced to keep the baby under this law?

Haha, yeah I guess so. And the male rape victim would be required to pay child support :P

---------- Post added 2013-01-24 at 10:42 PM ----------

Then you sir have no met the rapist that forced a miscarriage on the victim with no other evidence tying him to the rape.

Also, the female teacher (on law and order svu) that had sex with her student then had an abortion to erase all evidence.

This law attempts the close a loophole where rapist can currently destroy the only piece of evidence without consequences.

I hope you realise that this makes absolutely no sense. Citing SVU as evidence doesn't help either -_-

[Raiju]

I remember an episode of SVU where a woman was effectively date-raping men using a loophole, does such a law exist/still exist(in NY?)?

[FusedMass]

How is a fetus brought to term more evidence than the pregnancy itself? The majority of sexual intercourse doesn't result in a pregnancy anyway... so why is there an added burden for rape victims who fall pregnant compared to those that don't?

Why am I bothering to analyse this retarded insane troll logic?

To be honest. I'm not even sure how that would work. That's their words from their Article. If it sounds very confusing. It is because it really yes. The act of rape alone along with cotton swaps with the DNA should be enough. I'm not sure why they need the fetus unless this is some misguided forced attempt to force the rape victim to keep the child..

[Reg]

Wait, I thought women had ways of shutting that all down?!

[DeltrusDisc]

God damn, bills like this make me fume.

[ddsad2212]

So the only yes seems to be a misclick. Anyway this is insane lets leave it at that.

[Deadvolcanoes]

To the poster above me. She made it pretty clear that the person of the rape would have to carry the fetus through the trail. Then she say's this is to stop people from forcing her to get rid of it through abortion.

The intent of the bill was to make it a crime for ANYONE even the victim to abort the pregnancy during the trail. How else could they use it as evidence. I mention Fox because they are already back tracking on their comments saying it was a misunderstanding.

It will only be a crime when the intent is to destroy evidence of rape or incest.

The rape victim will not be charged with a crime for obtaining an abortion.

It says it right there in the update in your source.

[smelltheglove]

It will only be a crime when the intent is to destroy evidence of rape or incest.

The rape victim will not be charged with a crime for obtaining an abortion.

It says it right there in the update in your source.

just curious, what do you think the bill originally intended? another back door abortion limitation or genuine victim protection? considering the source of the bill i personally am dubious

[Mormolyce]

To be honest. I'm not even sure how that would work. That's their words from their Article. If it sounds very confusing. It is because it really yes. The act of rape alone along with cotton swaps with the DNA should be enough. I'm not sure why they need the fetus unless this is some misguided forced attempt to force the rape victim to keep the child..

Well I'm pretty sure it's just another load of nonsensical hot air to distract people from yet another attempt by pro-lifers to shove their views into the legal system. Any excuse will do, no matter how flimsy and absurd.

[Barnabas]

What I want to know is do rapists actually stick around and assist their victims after the crime? The author of this bill sure makes it seem that way? Maybe she should give herself one more uppercut when she wakes up every morning.

[Frozenbeef]

The baby just proves they had sex...not that they were raped 0o

[Deadvolcanoes]

just curious, what do you think the bill originally intended? another back door abortion limitation or genuine victim protection? considering the source of the bill i personally am dubious

I have no way of knowing that information, and neither do you.
But I'm not going to sit here and speculate, or throw my hands in the air and complain about something that isn't happening.

[Clampz]

As has been stated previously in this thread, The intent of the bill is to prevent women who have been sexually molested from being coerced to seek abortion. See: "With the intent to destroy evidence of a crime."

[Lilfrier]

1. I find abortion to be a horrendous crime against a helpless child who did nothing wrong to deserve losing his life. Yes, I get in the case of rape, the woman didn't ask for it, but is the answer to being raped to kill a child? Not in my mind.

2. I still don't support this bill because it's twisting legal terms to fit a political/personal agenda. This makes some kind of assumption that rape always results in pregnancy, and it makes me wonder if this moron thinks that if you're not pregnant, you have no case against a rapist.

3. I'm voting no, but I still find abortion to be one of the most disgusting things a person can do.

[Mormolyce]

It will only be a crime when the intent is to destroy evidence of rape or incest.

The rape victim will not be charged with a crime for obtaining an abortion.

It says it right there in the update in your source.

Sounds like a hasty last minute retraction to me. Compare:

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."

UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. -- Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

“New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders,” said Brown. “By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.”

[Frolk]

what...the...fuck....

[Deadvolcanoes]

I still find abortion to be one of the most disgusting things a person can do.

That's probably because you don't actually understand what abortion is.

[Raiju]

Sounds like a hasty last minute retraction to me. Compare:

You're comparing a news article with the words of the perosn who wrote the bill. Original bill vs new words would be actually useful.