HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Abortion Bill Would Force...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:49 PM

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

House Bill 206, introduced by New Mexico Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

Geez, the creative ways they come up.


3 replies, 681 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Abortion Bill Would Force Rape Victims To Continue Pregnancy As 'Evidence' (Original post)
rightsideout Jan 2013 OP
aquart Jan 2013 #1
Waltons_Mtn Jan 2013 #2
ablestmage Jan 2013 #3

Response to rightsideout (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:52 PM

1. Jezebel was eaten by dogs.

Too derivative?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:29 PM

2. Doesn't evidence need to be kept by the state?

So after a child is born, the state should be responsible for the "evidence", chain of custody and all. What happens to evidence once the trial is over? In most cases the "owner" must claim the evidence or the evidence is destroyed/sold off by the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:25 AM

3. Headline is utter contradiction of bill language

For those with elementary-school level sentence analysis, you can easily see that the proposal is about the *intent* to conceal evidence of a crime, not the act of destruction.

Even if the bill suggested that taking an evening stroll on Sundays, painting things orange, performing a 3-point turn on a 2-way street, or licking postage stamps were ways in which evidence could be concealed, the intent behind those actions must be specifically to conceal evidence -- and does not bring charges against those who perform those actions without intent to conceal evidence.

1. You may not get peanut butter stuck in your mouth with intent to talk funny.
2. You may not get peanut butter stuck in your mouth.

The specific forbidden action is the intent, not the act itself. Only interpretation #1 is in play here, not false interpretation of #2 that HuffPo is suggesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread