Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

okaawhatever

(9,478 posts)
5. I think there has been alot of misunderstanding with this bill. Mainly because it was poorly
Sun Jan 27, 2013, 07:43 PM
Jan 2013

written. I've followed it since the beginning. It seems that after the story ran Brown came out and explained the purpose of the bill. It was to stop a rapist from coercing or forcing a woman to have an abortion to hide the evidence. While she didn't say it, one poster on a website said that's common in incest. If the girl carries the baby to term, it is always proof of the incest. That is why she amended it to remove the woman who was raped from being prosecuted. While yes, they could test the fluid from an abortion if there was a complaint beforehand, I guess some are pressured to get an abortion. Since it appears the girl/woman would be protected, i'm wondering how bad this is. Now, it would have to be investigated to make sure no one could use this as a way to disrupt abortion practices or deny service. I'll hold off on judgement until I see the final analysis of the bill. She'll likely lose her seat to a dem next election anyway.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Roxanne Lara calling for ...»Reply #5