HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » New Mexico Bill Would Cri...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:18 AM

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

Source: Huffington Post

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.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html

78 replies, 5993 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 78 replies Author Time Post
Reply New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence' (Original post)
kpete Jan 2013 OP
Nancy Waterman Jan 2013 #1
Scairp Jan 2013 #65
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #2
alp227 Jan 2013 #62
oldhippydude Jan 2013 #3
yellowcanine Jan 2013 #4
uhnope Jan 2013 #47
derby378 Jan 2013 #5
OKNancy Jan 2013 #6
hlthe2b Jan 2013 #7
elleng Jan 2013 #63
niyad Jan 2013 #8
olegramps Jan 2013 #9
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #10
Moonwalk Jan 2013 #30
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #11
barbtries Jan 2013 #12
CBGLuthier Jan 2013 #13
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #21
niyad Jan 2013 #54
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #56
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #14
niyad Jan 2013 #17
SoapBox Jan 2013 #15
CarmanK Jan 2013 #16
TlalocW Jan 2013 #18
kiranon Jan 2013 #42
RC Jan 2013 #43
uppityperson Jan 2013 #19
Orrex Jan 2013 #20
Ezlivin Jan 2013 #22
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #23
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #31
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #33
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #34
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #38
niyad Jan 2013 #55
Scairp Jan 2013 #66
niyad Jan 2013 #67
Scairp Jan 2013 #72
booley Jan 2013 #50
bamacrat Jan 2013 #24
Solly Mack Jan 2013 #25
allan01 Jan 2013 #26
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #27
glinda Jan 2013 #28
Smilo Jan 2013 #29
iandhr Jan 2013 #32
NightOwwl Jan 2013 #35
Historic NY Jan 2013 #36
xocet Jan 2013 #37
HockeyMom Jan 2013 #39
marshall Jan 2013 #40
Scairp Jan 2013 #68
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #41
leftynyc Jan 2013 #44
Gormy Cuss Jan 2013 #45
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #46
hifiguy Jan 2013 #48
Ash_F Jan 2013 #49
indepat Jan 2013 #51
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #52
Auntie Bush Jan 2013 #53
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #57
Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2013 #58
niyad Jan 2013 #59
Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2013 #60
LarryNM Jan 2013 #61
greymattermom Jan 2013 #64
brooklynite Jan 2013 #69
butterflygirl Jan 2013 #70
niyad Jan 2013 #74
EvilAL Jan 2013 #71
and-justice-for-all Jan 2013 #73
mahatmakanejeeves Jan 2013 #75
RKP5637 Jan 2013 #76
duhneece Jan 2013 #77
duhneece Jan 2013 #78

Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:20 AM

1. I think Rachel will mention this tonight

Yet more evidence of Republican shamelessness and stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nancy Waterman (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:12 AM

65. That don't make no kinda sense

So, let us assume for just a second this was a law. What if the doctor performed the abortion and kept the product of conception for DNA testing, which is, I can only assume, her freak reasoning behind writing this bill? How could they be charged with a crime if they DO preserved the evidence of the crime, like, in a jar, sent to a crime lab, just like other biological evidence is kept all the time, everyday, in the real world? Who in the hell voted for this dumb hag anyway? Jesus wept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:21 AM

2. I dub Cathrynn Brown the new Todd Akin. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:02 AM

62. HA! You DAMN right! Because women NEVER get pregnant if they LEGITIMATELY got raped...

but if so then why make it a crime to abort pregnancies that resulted from rape???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:23 AM

3. the good news is

that New Mexico has a democratic legislature... this bill will not pass

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:23 AM

4. You really can't make this up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:58 PM

47. I often wonder how far beneath parody the GOP will go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:23 AM

5. Congratulations! You've given birth to a bouncing baby Exhibit A

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:24 AM

6. jaw-dropping unbelievable.

incidentally, couldn't the results of an abortion be DNA tested as well as a full-term baby?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:28 AM

7. Yes, of course.... This legislator is as ignorant as they come

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:31 AM

63. Of course, and since when do 'rape kits' contain evidence of pregnancy,

which only becomes apparent how long after insemination???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:29 AM

8. this woman-hating woman is an attorney, to boot. I hope her office gets an earful, and

her email is overloaded. doesn't matter whether it stands a chance of passing, what an unbelievably ignorant piece of crap bill.

glad to see you side with the rapists, cath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:32 AM

9. These people are certifiably crazy. This goes from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:32 AM

10. Coming up next: If an arsonist sets fire to your home, don't put the fire out! The smouldering ruins

will be needed as evidence of the crime! And if a thug stabs you, don't go to emergency room: your lifeless body will be needed as evidence of the crime!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:07 PM

30. +1000

Thank you for giving me a chance to laugh at this--as black humored as that had to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:36 AM

11. Satan is strong in rep. brown

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:37 AM

12. introduced by a woman.

sickening. republicans get worse and worse somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:37 AM

13. Well, at least it is a woman this time.

How people resist the urge to punch such idiots until the stupid is gone is a marvel in self-control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBGLuthier (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:49 AM

21. Resist the urge to punch; just call, write or e-mail. Here's her contact info:

Address: 1814 N. Guadalupe Street
Carlsbad, NM 88220

Capitol Phone: (505) 986-4248

Capitol Room #: 206B

Office Phone: (575) 302-2746

E-mail: cath@cathrynnbrown.com


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:53 PM

54. I did that first thing this morning. even managed not to swear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:09 PM

56. Thank you for your service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:37 AM

14. Are you fucking kidding me? Is this the Onion?!

That's like saying taking a bullet out of a gun shot victim is "tampering with evidence."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:40 AM

17. you would think it would be the Onion, but, alas, this is for real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:38 AM

15. AND...the War on Women continues.

Hey Rep. Cathrynn Brown (Puke Party)...instead of "charging a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence"...I would rather just give you a swift KICK in the ASS!

...that's just to let you know that you are STOOPID!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:39 AM

16. Never fails that a republican will find new ways to use power to SUPPRESS democracy and human rights

The New Mexico legislature should be ashamed of itself for even allowing such proposed laws into the hopper. Do they not know how obnoxious their behavior is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:44 AM

18. Does the baby become property of the state then

Seems to me that's how it would work out then.

TlalocW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TlalocW (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:33 PM

42. Agree. Otherwise one would be tampering with evidence. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TlalocW (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:31 PM

43. How long do they have to keep it in the evidence locker, after it is born?

 

Do they have to keep it in a big baggie to avoid contaminating it?
Somehow I don't think this has been thought out too well,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:44 AM

19. Idiots. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:48 AM

20. So if Rep. Cathrynn Brown were stabbed in the neck...

She'd leave the knife in her jugular until the suspect's trial is completed?

Otherwise she's tampering with evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:53 AM

22. Evidence lockers full of babies

Makes 'binders full of women' sound almost reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:53 AM

23. Hold on now.

“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 title analysis of the bill is flawed. This does not target the rape victim. It MIGHT target the doctor that performs it, if it goes into law as it is written.

Check the bold bits. So if a father raped his 12 year old daughter, got her pregnant, and then forced her to have an abortion, the way I read that, this makes HIM the criminal, not the pregnant girl. If the victim sought the abortion on her own, there is no clear intent to destroy evidence, no coercion, no compulsion, this statute would be unenforceable.

I would think this is a win, in the case where the rapist has some form of control over the victim, and in cases where a woman herself seeks an abortion to eliminate a pregnancy that resulted from her being raped, the statute looks powerless.

There MIGHT be a challenge around 'intent to destroy evidence', I could see some fuckhead trying to abuse that to apply it to anyone seeking an abortion after a rape, but the letter of the law appears aimed at rapists that exert some control over the victim, like a child, or abuse victim that lives with the abuser.

The other risky bit looks like the 'facilitating' piece, which might be abused to target an abortion provider that didn't KNOW the victim of the rape was being coerced into the abortion by the abuser.

If that language could be cleaned up a bit, the end result is no chilling effect on women seeking abortion to eliminate a pregnancy resulting from a rape, and piling on charges to the rapist if in the case of coercion. Hell, it's ALMOST reasonable as the language stands now. Highly unusual for a republican source.


Edit: I suppose it might also be problematic around the victim seeking an abortion to eliminate a pregnancy without ever reporting the rape to the police... Still, one could easily claim duress if the rapist has some control over the victim's life/safety/well being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:09 PM

31. The word 'procuring' makes the victim a part of the intent to destroy evidence. Women

normally procure their own abortions. Agree they'd have a hard time with that 'intent to destroy evidence' since most pregnant rape victims intent is to end the pregnancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:14 PM

33. Yeah, intent is a potential abuse vector. I could see how this could be abused as written.

At least the first few times, as rape victims are hauled into court under this statute to 'explain themselves'.

The greatest glaring risk would be victims seeking abortions without having reported the rape to the police.

The law does need some re-wording, but I wholly endorse the naked idea of targeting people who force a rape victim into an abortion with the intent to conceal the rape. I think this law is just badly worded.

Maybe I'm a little naïve too, as I find it hard to imagine someone would craft this law with the intent of having a chilling effect on abortion in the case of rape overall, but I suppose it's possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:18 PM

34. I fear you are naive. I do believe the 'intent' of this bill is to restrict abortions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:29 PM

38. Yeah, the more I look at it, the more I can see ways it could be abused.

Needs a total re-write.

Malicious by intent? Ugh. That's a horrid thought, but you're right, it is a possible motive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:57 PM

55. how about just getting rid of this bill entirely? surely, after the last several years continued,

hate-filled attacks on women's autonomy, you don't seriously believe this bill was about coercion from a rapist? the ONLY bill in years that ISN"T a direct attack on women's reproductive and bodily autonomy?

unfortunately, I have been around this battle for too many decades to believe anything like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #55)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:30 AM

66. I have a better idea

Let's get rid of the idiot legislator who actually put this exceedingly fucked up shit down on paper and then had the half-baked idea it would make a good bill to present to the state legislature. Who put her into office? She, and they, all need to be rounded up and given some quiet time because they are in desperate need of psychiatric intervention. Even if I didn't vote for her but lived in her district I would be horrified if people knew she was my state representative. It's embarrassing someone this stupid actually won an election. I gotta find out who her ran against her and didn't get more votes. They must have gotten caught with a dead body and a kilo of heroin in a whorehouse to lose an election to her. Or her opponent was a bunion on someone's left foot. Christ on a pony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Reply #66)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:39 AM

67. great idea--the scary thing is, this is her second term --apparently, she is the michele bachmann

of NM. another poster indicated that her district seems to have a lot of crazies in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:30 PM

72. Maybe she just cooked her own goose for the next election

There must be enough sane people living there already or who might move there to get rid of her. And sometimes the crazies will say, hey, that idea's a little too crazy for even us crazy people to put up with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:07 PM

50. seems this bill would be easy to fix

just get rid of the
procuring or facilitating an abortion
, part.

I think few would have a problem with prosecuting someone who forced another to have an abortion

But this bill goes beyond that.

The nicest thing we can say is it was poorly thought out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:56 AM

24. This may be a stupid question but...

Couldn't they keep what was aborted? Like in a jar or something. Then the DNA would still be there. Fucked up law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:59 AM

25. Idiot. Cruel and ignorant.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:00 PM

26. re:New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence

gee. i wonder what would happen if states made it against the law for men to have their tubes cut . hmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:03 PM

27. Really? What next? Not burying a shooting victim because you'd lose evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:03 PM

28. Introduction of the thought means a whole slew of attempts to push this elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:06 PM

29. Six degrees of separation between the Christian Right and the Taliban

actually I don't think it is that much.

Where the hell do the right come up with these twisted and inane ideas for attacking women?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:14 PM

32. Just when I thought nothing will surprise me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:19 PM

35. 'Legally' require victims of rape to carry pregnancies to term?

I don't think there is anything legal about it.

Sounds more like slavery to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:23 PM

36. NUTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:26 PM

37. ....

Representative Cathrynn N. Brown - (R)




District: 55
County: Eddy
Representative Since: 2011
Occupation: Attorney
Address: 1814 N. Guadalupe Street
Carlsbad, NM 88220
Capitol Phone: (505) 986-4248
Capitol Room #: 206B
Office Phone: (575) 302-2746
Home Phone:
E-mail: cath@cathrynnbrown.com

http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legdetails.aspx?SPONCODE=HBROW


HOUSE BILL 206
51ST LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, 2013
INTRODUCED BY
Cathrynn N. Brown

...

B. Tampering with evidence shall include procuring
or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another

(page break)

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.


...

http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0206.pdf

http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session.aspx?chamber=H&legtype=B&legno=%20206&year=13

Bills sponsored by Cathrynn N. Brown:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/BillDisplay.aspx?SponsorCode=HBROW&year=13


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:40 PM

39. So no pregnancy equals no rape?

How do they get evidence of rape where conception doesn't happen? I suppose giving the victim the Morning After Pill to prevent a pregnancy would be tampering too, right?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:46 PM

40. What about stepfathers who coerce young girls into abortions?

I think that is the silver lining intent of the bill, but it should be made clear that the girl or woman herself is not meant to be a target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marshall (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:39 AM

68. Duh

Even before Roe the women who got an abortion and had to go to the hospital because they would die if they didn't rarely if ever were charged with a crime. They wanted the people doing them, doctors or not. Abortion laws never target pregnant women. We are the poor little victims who can't speak for ourselves so the very benevolent Government has to make our decisions for us and protect us from the big bad baby-killing Planned Parenthood, or whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:59 PM

41. When I think they can't go any lower...

...They double down on the suckage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:06 PM

44. Question from my lawyer sister

What do they need the baby for? If it's DNA, why can't the rape kit suffice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:15 PM

45. Cathrynn Brown is a pathetic waste of oxygen

and that's the kindest thing I can say about her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:49 PM

46. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:01 PM

48. The pukes dug through the bottom of the barrel long ago

and now are headed for the center of the earth. Fortunately it is molten and they will be incinerated when they hit paydirt, err, lava.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:37 PM

49. Well...didn't see that one coming. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:28 PM

51. Domestic right-wing extremist groups have passed a shit-load of local legislation criminalizing

a woman's vagina, but squeal like stuck hogs at any modest attempt to implement sensible gun-control measures. The cumulative damage these groups have inflicted on America, its people and government, is immeasurable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:18 PM

52. Can the evidence be given up for adoption?

Who pays to feed the evidence, if the woman is unable to? Who pays for the shelter of the evidence if the woman is homeless? Homeless women are raped you know. I don't think she thought this through at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:25 PM

53. Oh god, spare me these low life ReThugs!

Since when is the baby evidence of rape? I thought the evidence was collected during a medical exam following the rape accusation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:12 PM

57. So twisted. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:22 PM

58. Ya really wonder if the locals she represents applaud this stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:14 AM

59. well, she is serving a second term, so she obviously got re-elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:37 AM

60. What is it? The Church Lady district?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:50 AM

61. Southeast New Mexico aka Little Texas

It has a high per capita of hate and crazy. Attitudes, even in public, are just unbelievable. Those with a heart and sanity generally stay low and watch their backs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:36 AM

64. this is not even necessary

Fetal DNA can be found in the mother's blood. Just take a blood sample before the procedure.
http://www.ibtimes.com/scientists-decipher-babys-dna-sequence-just-mothers-blood-dads-dna-not-useful-721331

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:53 AM

69. So, the Law Enforcement agency is ultimately responsible for custody of the fetus/child?

If they're not "protecting" the "evidence", it's not useable in Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:53 PM

70. First of all this would prevent women from reporting a rape.

 

Why? Because they will fear if they become pregnant they will have to have the baby. They do not report, the rapist will know he got away with it and will continue to rape again and again and again.

I can just see the billboard as you enter New Mexico:

WELCOME TO NEW MEXICO, THE RAPE STATE!

What a sad state of affairs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to butterflygirl (Reply #70)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:26 PM

74. welcome to DU. sadly, what you are suggesting is a very likely outcome of this kind of

utter stupidity and woman-hating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:25 PM

71. I think I'm gonna puke..

That is fucking sickening. They will try anything at all.. anything.. For the many reasons pointed out above it wouldn't work or get passed, but even coming up with that idea is fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:07 PM

73. This is what happens when you let states decide on social issues...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:31 AM

75. "But now New Mexico legislator Cathrynn Brown says that it was all a big mistake."

Lawyer’s Rape Evidence Law Should Probably Be Aborted
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/01/lawyers-rape-evidence-law-should-probably-be-aborted/

28 Jan 2013 at 2:36 PMAbortion, Politics, Rape
Lawyer’s Rape Evidence Law Should Probably Be Aborted
By Elie Mystal

On last week’s episode of “Republicans Say The Darndest Things,” we had a female Republican legislator out west proposing a bill that would criminalize abortions for victims of rape or incest.

But now New Mexico legislator Cathrynn Brown says that it was all a big mistake. She wanted to charge rapists who convince their victims to have abortions with tampering with evidence. Because apparently holding rapists accountable for their rapes isn’t enough?

Brown is an attorney and claims a drafting error caused all this confusion. If you believe her, that’s one hell of a typo that nine other New Mexico Republicans also missed….



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:01 AM

76. "You can't fix STUPID" ... Ron White line ... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:38 PM

77. New Mexico lawmaker resurrects bill making abortion after rape a felony

We all remember last week when Republican state legislator Rep. Cathrynn Brown introduced a bill that would charge rape survivors seeking an abortion with a felony, right?

And we all remember when she was promptly Internet shamed and removed all evidence of the bill from her website, posthaste?

Well, she’s back. And so is the bill.

After finding out that the public doesn’t take too kindly to putting rape survivors in jail, Rep. Brown amended the legislation. Now, instead of charging women who terminate a pregnancy caused by rape with “tampering with evidence,” the updated bill will charge state abortion providers. Why? For “facilitating” the destruction of evidence.


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/new_mexico_lawmaker_resurrects_bill_making_abortion_after_rape_a_felony/?source=newsletter

She's from our part of the state, but we had a 'We Trust Women Commemoration of Roe v Wade Rally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duhneece (Reply #77)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:42 PM

78. TeaParty cancelled the rally they planned

Same time, same place, but we got our Special Events permit from the City Clerk approved Jan 3 so the TeaParty cancelled, fortunately.


My favorite, tho' she didn't really show this to the public (mostly just to us):

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread