I do not agree with totally liberal abortions - but to say someone needs to go to jail because they were raped and have an abortion is wholy stupid!

That type of attitude sickens me.

your right, mentors...i couldn't believe it myself until i read the article, and actually found out it was true.
talk about forcing big brother into your life, she wants to live in a theocracy i guess.

In a truly bizarre case of “legislative remorse,” GOP New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown apparently came to her senses to realize the bill she’d introduced to the legislature on Thursday, January 24, 2013, was a REALLY BAD IDEA.

Each side has it's nutcases i suppose. Ideals are one thing. The human equation sometimes gets in the way of common sense legislation.

Originally posted by jimmiec
In a truly bizarre case of “legislative remorse,” GOP New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown apparently came to her senses to realize the bill she’d introduced to the legislature on Thursday, January 24, 2013, was a REALLY BAD IDEA.

Each side has it's nutcases i suppose. Ideals are one thing. The human equation sometimes gets in the way of common sense legislation.

so...she didn't think it was so bad when she first introduced it. but, when she started getting alot of heat for it, she THEN came to her senses. her "senses" would be good on the jerry springer show, but not in a legislative body.

What a lunatic.

I wish these kind of idiots would focus less on fringe issues / zany ideas.

sure just as soon as we start jailing GOV officials and Corps for all the laws they break. That is if there is any room left in the jails after we do that.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by jimmiec
In a truly bizarre case of “legislative remorse,” GOP New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown apparently came to her senses to realize the bill she’d introduced to the legislature on Thursday, January 24, 2013, was a REALLY BAD IDEA.

Each side has it's nutcases i suppose. Ideals are one thing. The human equation sometimes gets in the way of common sense legislation.

so...she didn't think it was so bad when she first introduced it. but, when she started getting alot of heat for it, she THEN came to her senses. her "senses" would be good on the jerry springer show, but not in a legislative body.

By senses, she probably mean't to say a nice chunk of change from an outside source.

Having read the article in and the propsed law the following can be stated:

This is a bad law, a very bad law, on the basis that it opens a door that will not be so easy to shut, if it goes through the courts. For staters, what better excuse than to allow for a rape victim to get an abortion, other than to prevent an unwanted child from being brought into the world. Add it to the point that if this law passes, what of the children that are the product of rape, what happens to them? Think about it you are a woman, and you are raped, then forced to bear this child, to serve as a reminder of an act of violence in your life. How would you treat this child, loving or in disgust, unable to or unwilling to care for this child.

But beyond this, there is other aspects to this law that I don't think that the lawmakers have taken into consideration. With the application of this law, the number of rapes reported will go down, the victim already feeling the shame and humiliation of this will think twice about such, or even if it is worth it all, to be forced to raise a child that is unwanted.

To further complicate matters, it will also lead to the situations before abortion became legal, people will go to say Mexico, to have the proceedure done, or to a back alley, where the sanitary conditions were not so good, or even willing to use a coat hanger on themselves as not to have a child.

This law, if it passes, will go to court, the arguments will be based along the same lines as before, that it is a violation of the privacy of the mother, and that any and all medical information should remain private, including abortions, not open to the privy of the state for review. Further it could be argued that it opens the door for other areas where medical information could be used against people, creating a situation where a person could be not hired or even fired due to the medical condition that they may have and the employer not wanting to have to pay the extra insurance costs associated with such.

This proposed bill is not about preserving evidence, it's about control. If a woman has an abortion but preserves the fetus for the prosecution, then there would be no destruction of evidence. The same DNA tests that would be performed on a living being can be applied to a clump of cells.

It seems to me that this Cathrynn Brown is either being willfully ignorant OR she is trying to impose her religion on others.

How far aLong would a child in the womb have to be to get DNA evidence?

If evidence is the goal, make the law to require the child not be aborted until such time has passed.

Though i'am sure demon rats would cry murder, Wait I mean wolf, yeah wolf.

I have a better bill lets hang this Republican lawmakers that make moronic bills that sounds more like sharia law to me by the balls until they turn blue and they fall off

That is a great bill.

Never mind....already covered.

This is exactly why fiscal conservatism is falling by the wayside. This is why libertarian leaning republicans are being ignored. This is why the GOP is losing the culture of the country to a bunch of nanny state ban happy morons.