Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

A great joy to see you again, and I understand your being upset in this matter. I hope you won't think less of me for taking the opposite side from everyone in this thread. I think it needs a little more thought, although I applaud your instincts.

I'll argue that this is a good and constitutional law, and that women should celebrate it. I hope you don't mind if I repeat the only change to an existing bill dealing with the tampering of 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," (Emphasis added)
There is nothing here that says a woman has to take the child to term, or that she can't have an abortion. It only punishes those who obtain or coerce another to obtain an abortion in order to destroy evidence.

Under this law, if a rape victim gets an abortion, she faces up to 3 years in prison for felony charges!

So, this statement is not quite accurate.

A woman could go into a hospital and say "I want an abortion, I was raped three months ago (or last week) and you should keep some tissue as evidence." No problem and the evidence is preserved. Yes, as posters have pointed out, you can get tissue from the foetus, but there is no reason to unless the woman claims rape or incest.

Think of an abusive boyfriend who says "Get an abortion. Keep your mouth shut, I'll be in there with you. Say a word and I'll kill you." The boyfriend can be charged under this law.


Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive nonprofit opposing the bill, called it "blatantly unconstitutional" on Thursday. “The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state,” he said. “According to Republican philosophy, victims who are ‘legitimately raped’ will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case.“
This is a combination of several false statements.

In short, this bill places no extra burden on the woman and adds a penalty for those trying to hide evidence of a crime. I like it.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthOej

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Interestingly, she is now saying it was a "drafting error" and it's not what she meant the bill to say... I think more likely, she didn't realize the repercussions and is now trying to back out...

Source


Rep. Nate Gentry, R-Albuquerque, said Brown's intent was to focus on a perpetrator, such as a stepfather who raped a teen, impregnated her and then demanded that she get an abortion.

Brown did not want to put any onus on a rape victim, Gentry said.

An attorney, Brown said her practice is to edit a bill carefully before releasing it. This time, a drafting error occurred and she was not diligent enough so it got through, she said.


I'm not buying it Ms. Brown...

Text of Bill



Or even more likely she knew what she was proposing, tried to pull a fast one, and got busted. Putting aside political labels for a moment, how does someone like her even get elected? Does she lie to her constituents, or do they honestly believe in what she says?


Her "excuse" of wanting to protect the teenager raped by her stepfather, who would force an abortion, makes NO sense!

How would that even work? A guy takes his step daughter to the clinic and says she was raped. They, in turn say, "Oh, then we can't give her an abortion."

Or, a guy takes his step daughter to the clinic and says she's a slut who sleeps around and doesn't know who the father is, giver an abortion." They in turn say "Oh, okay, step right up!"

Would a woman admit to being raped or even report a rape, if it meant that she would have to carry a pregnancy that resulted to term? NO!

This bill in no way seeks to protect the woman, but does everything to protect the rapist!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is hilarious! Considering that The Republican Party seeks to Learn from their Mistakes...

If the GOP wants to be relevant in the next presidential election, they need to get rid of the whack-jobs in 2014.
I'll be doing my best to that end. I'm in New Mexico.


I hope they keep up this BS.. it wont pass anyway.. but keep showing how out of touch they are. Gives us Libertarians a chance to win an election.


I’m a conservative (about as right as they come) and I surely don’t agree with this garbage. I think you’re seeing the fringe element of the religious right pushing buttons here. This kind of crap costs us elections.

This isn’t conservatives pushing this…..or mainstream GOP…..it’s the religious fringe (a small portion….more prevalent in the south). Don’t be dishonest and lump us all together as if this is a mainstream position of the right.



Star for you my friend. I'm probably on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you,and I am sure we would argue about many things. I will actually concede that some conservative positions actually have merit.

My malaise, anger, and downright hatred is directed solely at these repugnant individuals. While definitely a minority in the party, these crazies tend to be the loudest. The media only pays attention to them, and most people are unwilling or incapable of looking past it. That is why I believe the right is in danger of falling out of significance. It is perfectly okay to have religious beliefs, but I am not interested in living in the Saudi Arabia of Christianity.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
In case you want to offer Rep Brown your support; here is her facebook page.


www.facebook.com...

I doubt if it will be up much longer.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

A great joy to see you again, and I understand your being upset in this matter. I hope you won't think less of me for taking the opposite side from everyone in this thread. I think it needs a little more thought, although I applaud your instincts.

I'll argue that this is a good and constitutional law, and that women should celebrate it. I hope you don't mind if I repeat the only change to an existing bill dealing with the tampering of 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," (Emphasis added)
There is nothing here that says a woman has to take the child to term, or that she can't have an abortion. It only punishes those who obtain or coerce another to obtain an abortion in order to destroy evidence.

Under this law, if a rape victim gets an abortion, she faces up to 3 years in prison for felony charges!

So, this statement is not quite accurate.

A woman could go into a hospital and say "I want an abortion, I was raped three months ago (or last week) and you should keep some tissue as evidence." No problem and the evidence is preserved. Yes, as posters have pointed out, you can get tissue from the foetus, but there is no reason to unless the woman claims rape or incest.

Think of an abusive boyfriend who says "Get an abortion. Keep your mouth shut, I'll be in there with you. Say a word and I'll kill you." The boyfriend can be charged under this law.


Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive nonprofit opposing the bill, called it "blatantly unconstitutional" on Thursday. “The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state,” he said. “According to Republican philosophy, victims who are ‘legitimately raped’ will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case.“
This is a combination of several false statements.

In short, this bill places no extra burden on the woman and adds a penalty for those trying to hide evidence of a crime. I like it.

With respect,
Charles1952



Isn't the bill being intentionally vague though? While what you say is true, the risk of abuse by some zealot prosecutor seems pretty high. Looks more like an attempt by a "no abortions under any circumstances" person to bully a rape victim into not aborting.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Hi Charles,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I disagree with your assessment, however, that women should celebrate this law.

The proposed bill, as I read it is pretty clear on criminalizing the act of "procuring and abortion" if the woman is a victim of an unreported rape. It also criminalizes any doctor who performs an abortion, knowingly, on a rape victim. Doesn't that force a woman to report a rape whether or not she wants to, or is afraid to? What about her right to privacy?


51ST LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, 2013
INTRODUCED BY Cathrynn N. Brown
AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING PROCURING OF AN ABORTION AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:

SECTION 1. Section 30-22-5 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1963, Chapter 303, Section 22-5, as amended) is amended to read: "30-22-5.
TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE.--

A. Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.
B. Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another .190749.3
www.nmlegis.gov...


Right now, I don't believe that a woman, or anyone for that matter, is compelled to report that they were the victim of rape, or any crime for that matter.

If a woman's choice is private and protected under the constitution, and is between her and her doctor, how can it be legal to force her to report a rape, under threats of felony prison time, as terms to procure an abortion, when another woman who wasn't raped can procure one and remain anonymous?



A woman could go into a hospital and say "I want an abortion, I was raped three months ago (or last week) and you should keep some tissue as evidence." No problem and the evidence is preserved. Yes, as posters have pointed out, you can get tissue from the foetus, but there is no reason to unless the woman claims rape or incest.


You know, nothing is that easy. As soon as a woman admits to her doctor that she was the victim of rape, the Police and their detectives will be called in and their "evidence" will be collected labels and analyzed. All the while, the woman has to retell and relive the ordeal, and possibly face her rapist, only to be attacked again in court, and possibly see her rapist go free.




Think of an abusive boyfriend who says "Get an abortion. Keep your mouth shut, I'll be in there with you. Say a word and I'll kill you." The boyfriend can be charged under this law.


Isn't this already illegal?


edit on 24-1-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthOej
 

Dear DarthOej,

Good point.
"Intent" cases are a little tricky to prove, but that works to the woman's advantage. The Prosecutor is the one who has to prove his case, not the defense. The State has to prove that the abortion was obtained with the intent to hide evidence. Mind a little "inside baseball?"

Either the police, or the prosecutor while digging through some other case, will see something that maybe looks like its run afoul of this law. The prosecutor (probably an assistant) will pull out the law as written and look at every word in it. (Here, I'm assuming a reasonably competent and moral prosecutor.) They know from law school and experience how to read a ststute. They will break it down into parts and ask "Can I prove every part of the statute has been violated?' If not, they either ask for more investigation or throw the case away.

When they think they can prove the case, it goes up to the chief prosecutor (titles vary). The assistant gives a three minute summary of the case and the chief double-checks the thinking. Then he asks himself at least these questions (I know, because I've done it), "Does prosecuting this case serve justice." "What resolution is fair? Probation, jail, a warning?" They will even sometimes check with the police involved, asking questions like "Was this person cooperative, excessively rebellious, repentant, what?

They will continue by asking "What will a jury think after hearing the defense?" "If this is a high profile case, what are the costs to the system of Justice if we lose? Should we wait for a clearer case?" Then after all of this he gives the yes or no to the prosecution.

If, as in your case, the assistant goes to trial and loses, worse still if the judge yells at him, the assistant will soon be looking for other work. There are more attorneys out that then there are jobs, there's no trouble finding another.

On top of all that, everyone knows that the first case of this kind will be appealed, regardless of the result. That has to be considered as well.

Finally, at this level, the chief prosecutor has to be re-elected. That keeps a little check on them as well.

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 24-1-2013 by charles1952 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


This law will allow for the prosecution of doctors and nurses who knowingly perform an abortion on a rape victim who does not want to report that rape to the police. It also will allow for the prosecution the woman seeking the abortion.

As these individual will be charged with felony offenses, they will need to pay big bucks for their legal support.

It gives the prosecutor unprecedented leeway to harass and make examples of abortion providers, creating an even more hostile environment for them and the women for whom they provide legal service.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

Thank you for stretching my mind, that's why you're one of my favorites.


This law will allow for the prosecution of doctors and nurses who knowingly perform an abortion on a rape victim who does not want to report that rape to the police.

As these individual will be charged with felony offenses, they will need to pay big bucks for their legal support.

It gives the prosecutor unprecedented leeway to harass and make examples of abortion providers, creating an even more hostile environment for them and the women for whom they provide legal service.

Only if the staff knew she had been raped. Then mandatory reporting laws kick in. Nothing in this bill makes a crime for the staff that wasn't already illegal behavior. If they don't report, this just adds an extra penalty to whatever is in the mandatory reporter laws. (No, I don't know what specificically is in those laws. Straighten me out if I've gone wrong.)

It also will allow for the prosecution the woman seeking the abortion.
Absolutely true, if they can show intent to destroy evidence.

I've got a couple of half-baked thoughts on the issue. Haven't thought them through, so I'd be glad of an opinion.

Do you know of any other situation where knowingly and intentionally covering up evidence of a felony doesn't get you charged s an accessory after the fact?

Does the woman have some responsibility to society at large to help remove criminals?

Will this bill make it easier to prosecute rapists for, at least, something?

Anyway, just off the top of my head.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





Do you know of any other situation where knowingly and intentionally covering up evidence of a felony doesn't get you charged as an accessory after the fact?


I don't know of any other crime where the evidence is a biological process that takes place days after the attack, and resides as a thing growing inside the victim. At any rate covering up evidence is different than not reporting a crime.

I found this on a victim support website.


Reporting the crime to the police

Why report the crime to the police? It is your choice whether you report the crime to the police. Some people choose not to report or may not report straight away for reasons important to them.

You may not want to speak to police or anyone else about what has occurred but
you may change your mind at a later date. If you make a note of the following
information about the crime then it can greatly assist police if you do decide to
make a report at a later date
www.justice.qld.gov.au...


If you home is burgled, and they take all the beer and cigarettes you have, you may suspect the neighbor's kid. But, you may choose to let it go with a stern talking to and threats if it happens again. Maybe make the kid mow your lawn for a month, or something. Cleaning up the kids muddy footprints wouldn't be a crime, and you have no duty to report the crime to the police.

It's the same with a shoplifter and shop owner. It's up to the shop owner to decide whether or not to call the police and give them a copy of the video of the crime, or let the person go with a warning.


Does the woman have some responsibility to society at large to help remove criminals?


At what price? Should she risk her and her possibly her family's reputation, privacy, dignity and safety?


Will this bill make it easier to prosecute rapists for, at least, something?


I can't see how. If a woman wants to report her rape, and see her attacker prosecuted, this law doesn't do any more to help convict the rapist than what is already in place. It only forces woman, who wish not to go through the trauma of reporting the crime, to do so, if they want an abortion. Or, they have lie to their doctors or put them in an compromising position, if the doctor has information about her rape, perhaps because of treating her for other injuries suffered during the attack.
edit on 25-1-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by DarthOej
 

Dear DarthOej,

Good point.
"Intent" cases are a little tricky to prove, but that works to the woman's advantage. The Prosecutor is the one who has to prove his case, not the defense. The State has to prove that the abortion was obtained with the intent to hide evidence. Mind a little "inside baseball?"

Either the police, or the prosecutor while digging through some other case, will see something that maybe looks like its run afoul of this law. The prosecutor (probably an assistant) will pull out the law as written and look at every word in it. (Here, I'm assuming a reasonably competent and moral prosecutor.) They know from law school and experience how to read a ststute. They will break it down into parts and ask "Can I prove every part of the statute has been violated?' If not, they either ask for more investigation or throw the case away.

When they think they can prove the case, it goes up to the chief prosecutor (titles vary). The assistant gives a three minute summary of the case and the chief double-checks the thinking. Then he asks himself at least these questions (I know, because I've done it), "Does prosecuting this case serve justice." "What resolution is fair? Probation, jail, a warning?" They will even sometimes check with the police involved, asking questions like "Was this person cooperative, excessively rebellious, repentant, what?

They will continue by asking "What will a jury think after hearing the defense?" "If this is a high profile case, what are the costs to the system of Justice if we lose? Should we wait for a clearer case?" Then after all of this he gives the yes or no to the prosecution.

If, as in your case, the assistant goes to trial and loses, worse still if the judge yells at him, the assistant will soon be looking for other work. There are more attorneys out that then there are jobs, there's no trouble finding another.

On top of all that, everyone knows that the first case of this kind will be appealed, regardless of the result. That has to be considered as well.

Finally, at this level, the chief prosecutor has to be re-elected. That keeps a little check on them as well.

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 24-1-2013 by charles1952 because: spelling



In a perfect world that would be true. However look at the Kern county child abuse hysteria. Ed Jagels was in office for over 20 years after that. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but even 1 person can do an incredible amount of damage.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthOej
 

Dear DarthOej,

You're perfectly right, one person can distort or abuse the laws to create a lot of damage. Your solution? Get rid of all laws that can be used to punish someone? Make sure that every person who is hired in a law enforcement or justice capacity is moral, sane, efficient, intelligent, polite, well versed in the laws, without bias or prejudice, not swayed by emotion but has empathy, and stays that way through decades of work?

It's an imperfect world and an imperfect system. You do what you can or give up and go home. Your objection can be made against any law that exists. We just keep trying.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


That is not what this is about. This is not going to force anyone to not have an abortion, this is to stop rapists and others from forcing innocent women into abortion. This doesn't stop abortions, it stops forced abortion. It makes abortion clinics turn the contents of the abortion over to the police. Similar laws have tried to be passed, but the rich abortion lobbyists pay the government to make it go away so that they can go on and have perverts rape little girls and bring them to abortion clinics to get rid of the evidence. It happens all the time, and we have women who are willing to testify to that fact, but something always happens to make us look like the bad people and rich wench Cecil Richards look like the hero. Maybe the bill is worded incorrectly, but that's why it's a bill, so that the wording can be corrected before being put into law.

As for what pro-lifers want, we want justice for the women we've seen hurt by abortion. We don't fault women who have abortions, but those who force or coerce them into it, who make them feel like there is no other choice. You don't know how often women who get abortions tell the people praying outside that they're glad they were there. Some of those who stand outside are over-zealous, and scream, and I, for one, refuse to associate with those kind of people. I stand there and pray, and try to give them literature that will help them with whatever they need. Women need to know that there's support out there for them, and that abortion is not the only option. Their minds aren't made up when they walk in the doors of the abortion clinics, they're looking for a way out of a situation, and they see abortion as an easy way out, instead of seeking help for the real issues, like lack of support, lack of funds, abuse, etc. In fact, that's what pregnancy care centers are for, yet in abortion loving cities like San Francisco and New York, they're banned.

Also, who says that women who are raped even want abortion? Many don't. Many are angry that they are being used to push the agenda of abortion. They don't want to be used for someone else's agenda, to keep something they don't believe in legal. Those who had abortions say they were medically raped because a strange man in a mask inserted foreign objects into them, and left them an empty shell of themselves. Women who had their babies say that at least one good thing came out of it, because the child was the only blessing in the dark shadow of the monster that is rape and assault. I urge you, please read their stories, their points of view, before making rape and assault victims the poster children of the abortion agenda.
afterabortion.org...
www.theunchoice.com...
www.rebeccakiessling.com...
prolifecorner.com...

Thank you, and sorry if my wording comes out as harsh, but someone I love died from the effects of post-abortion stress syndrome, due to a forced abortion. I know abortion hurts women because I've seen it with my own two eyes. Just think of what these women go through, and how many women and children are stigmatized by the abortion mind-set. It's not an easy decision, and it puts a small bandage on a much deeper wound, one that needs love, care, acceptance, and understanding, not a blind surgical procedure that could leave them scarred for life. www.abortionrisks.org...

"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women." - Alice Paul, author of the 1923 Equal Rights Amendment



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
i would only hope we'd never see the rapist get off due to a technicality when...
the victim was sentenced for destroying the evidence
or
the rapist get less time then the victim



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthOej
 



Originally posted by DarthOej
Putting aside political labels for a moment, how does someone like her even get elected?


In 2010, when we had the census, the GOP practiced "questionable redistricting". In other words, they moved the boundaries of their districts to include the more fringe elements (like the religious right and the tea partiers), and to exclude the more progressive populations, so that in the election, there would be some VERY right-leaning representatives in Congress. And it worked.
That's one factor in how the GOP took control of Congress in 2010. There's nothing wrong with redistricting in and of itself. It's the unfair inclusion and exclusion of certain political populations that I have a problem with.

In 2012, more votes went to Democratic House candidates than to Republican ones nationwide. But because of redistricting, people like this Brown bonehead and Michelle Bachmann were elected once again to serve their districts in Congress. And that's how the fringe element maintained control of the House in 2012.

Instead of having rectangle-, square- or triangle-shaped districts, they skew them until they end up looking more like this (This is an exaggeration, but you get the idea):





In Pennsylvania, for example, President Barack Obama received 52 percent of the vote, compared with Mitt Romney's 46.8 percent total. However, Democrats won only five of the state's 18 seats in the House of Representatives. As Slate's Dave Weigel points out, the state's congressional districts have been gerrymandered to keep suburban and rural areas red. Ohio shows a similar trend, with just four of the state's 16 seats going blue.


Source

THAT is how these whack-jobs got elected and that's who has controlling numbers in our Congress.


.
edit on 1/25/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MoonChild02
 


I'm sorry for you loss, but I can't see how this law, by threatening doctors, nurses and rape victims with felony jail time, will help stop rapist from coercing and intimidating their victims into abortions. It seems to me that education is the answer.

I have no problem with people who feel strongly that abortion is wrong, putting their opinions out there. But, accosting women who are entering clinics known to to perform abortions with Bible thumping zealots, distorted pictures and signs, and people praying loudly for God's wrath or mercy is also coercion and intimidating women.

Women have a choice when it comes to their reproductive options. This laws tries to intimidate doctors, nurses and rape victims away from their choice to abort by imposing threats to their personal and financial freedom.

Why should rape victims be forced to report a rape, in order to obtain an abortion, when a victim of another crime is not required to report it the police?

Rape is a crime, abortion is not. Coercing a woman to have an abortion is just as much a crime as coercing her to NOT have an abortion, in my opinion. It's her choice, and her choice alone to make. Many woman have endured abortion without suffering guilt, post traumatic stress, depression or physical damage. I know of many.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

As usual, you've given me a lot to think about and I'm grateful to you for that. I'd like to ask you a question, but I won't start about a discussion about your answer. I'm only asking because you are a passionate and informed spokesman for your position and I value your opinion more than most other's.

Assume a pregnant woman comes into an American medical facility and asks the staff to perform an abortion. Under which circumstances should the staff be allowed to refuse her? Under which circumstances should a law be able to prevent the abortion?

Again, I'm only asking because I think your opinion is representative and valuable.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MoonChild02
 



Originally posted by MoonChild02
That is not what this is about. This is not going to force anyone to not have an abortion, this is to stop rapists and others from forcing innocent women into abortion.


You are mistaken.

Read the Text of the Bill (Sorry it's in caps). It says to GET or PERFORM or COERCE someone to get an abortion after a rape is "tampering with evidence". Any of those are punishable under this law. So, the woman, the doctor and the rapist (or other coercer) are all liable.



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

AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING PROCURING OF AN ABORTION AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
...
B. 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.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,

You continue to flatter me! I would be suspicious, but I have no money! Your input in this thread is also much appreciated and provides a valuable insight into what good intentions do exist in this proposed bill.

I know that we disagree on the issue of legalized abortion, and I respect your opinion.

I'm good with the law as it stands, cutting of abortion on demand at 22 weeks, and allowing for emergency health issues beyond that.

As it is now, in most states a woman has to go through a waiting period and some sort of counseling before she can get an abortion. Also, a doctor has to determine the "sound mind" of the applicant, when signing release forms. So, if a doctor perceives that a woman is not of sound mind, under duress, or on drugs or under the influence of alcohol, he can postpone the procedure.

If a woman has second thoughts or is being forced into an abortion there are already measures in place to make sure she has the opportunity to make an educated choice.

I would like to see better accessibility to the Morning After Pill and to and education in contraceptives.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I cannot for the life of me believe that there are people who actually think they can excuse this blatant attempt of attacking the rights of women. In this day and age just cannot understand how or why.

reply to post by MoonChild02
 



That is not what this is about. This is not going to force anyone to not have an abortion, this is to stop rapists


The bill clearly forces rape victims to go through pregnancy, it makes it a requirement, in no way does it specify a choice to these victims. Just because the supposed purpose (which not many people buy, by the way) is about supposedly bringing the the rapist to justice, does not automatically make it any less forceful.

There's also no evidence that the victim must go through an entire pregnancy for evidence to surface, none, evidence can be retrieved without the need of forcing the victim to go through pregnancy. People like you really need to mind your own business instead of forcing people, especially victims, to do things against their will, just to satisfy your twisted view of morality. You really do.


This doesn't stop abortions, it stops forced abortion.


First of all, there are very few cases out there of forced abortions.

Second of all, if part of the intention here was to give women more rights on whether they want to have an abortion or not, a law could have been designed to address this. Instead we have a law forcing rape victims to go through pregnancy. So you're yapping on about so called forced abortions while attempted to force rape victims into going through with pregnancy. Really now? Do you want to re-think that excuse you just made there?


It makes abortion clinics turn the contents of the abortion over to the police.


This law isn't all that concerned about addressing the contents of abortions for evidence, it's about forcing rape victims to go through with pregnancy because it's supposedly necessary that a baby is conceived supposedly for evidence. Also, I'd be curious to see what source you have that there is this big issue?


As for what pro-lifers want, we want justice for the women we've seen hurt by abortion.


If you wanted to do this, you could establish organisational support for woman in these situations making these decisions. You could establish charities for single mothers, moral support, as opposed to putting in laws forcing all victims of rape to go through pregnancy. The latter does little to nothing to help this supposed goal of yours, instead you force victims against their will.


Also, who says that women who are raped even want abortion?


Here's a better question. Who said all women whom have been victims of rape, want abortions hmm?? Who said this huh? I'm yet to see a pro-choice advocate actually state this or state that they want to force rape victims to go through with abortions. Who says this huh? Or are you just making this up to push your agenda?? How about supporting rape victims in the form of choice, allow them to make the choices that they feel will help them heal from these types of crimes, as opposed to forcing or demonizing them into doing something they don't want. You want to help these women? You can start by respecting their rights and choices.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join