Abortions after rape is tampering with evidence, so says a US lawmaker

It isn’t just our politicians who are batshit crazy, get a load of this Republican lawmaker in New Mexico who thinks that abortions after rape is tampering with evidence:

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.”¬†

‚ÄúTampering 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.

Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive nonprofit opposing the bill, called it “blatantly unconstitutional” on Thursday.

‚ÄúThe bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state,‚ÄĚ he said. ‚ÄúAccording to Republican philosophy, victims who are ‚Äėlegitimately raped‚Äô will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case.‚Äú

Why is it so hard for Republicans to sound sane? …all the hallmarks of Todd Akin’s legitimate rape comment again…

Tagged:
  • Andrei

    LOL – Whale, the proposition is not about pinging the mother of the child, it is about pinging an individual who procures an abortion to cover up evidence of their own misdeeds.

    Never the less since baby murder is a sacred thing to the progressives, the most sacred thing other than sodomy perhaps, the distortions and spin are quickly deployed lest little people have chance to think for themselves and start to realize how evil our cultural elite and repulsive their values really are

    • Blair Mulholland

      Oh, so this is about stopping female rapists from aborting their babies? Really, Andrei, you must be a dumb piece of shit. The legislation is indefensible – not only is it unconstitutional – consensual babies can be aborted but rape babies not? – but it is the worst possible PR for the Republican Party. And yet you defend it – says a lot about your intelligence and character.

      • Alex

        Look on the bright side, at least he didn’t say that the woman had obviously sinned hence the rape.

        Andrei embodies why I have with anyone declaring moral propositions that they themselves will conveniently not have adhere to.

        Like Colin Craig, he seems to be an attention seeker, labouring under the illusion that the adverse reaction of right thinking people to his silly comments proves him to be correct.

        Never quite liked the (orthodox) Christian view that we have one life and then we await the Final Judgment. One of the virtues of a belief in transmigration of souls, I would have thought, is that Andrei may be born in the next life as a woman … .

    • Rodger T

      Don`t let your hypocrisy get in the way of your delusion,the church is very selective about the fetus when money is involved.

      http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/24/catholic-hospital-chain-beats-malpractice-suit-by-saying-fetuses-arent-people/

      http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      What is evil is finger pointing hard core religionists of any persuasion, but in your case Orthodox or Conservative catholic…the proposition forces women with rape babies to have to carry them to term…that is disgusting…glas to see you encourage such misogyny…the more you speak the more we find out what a despicable human you are.

      You better get on with your chores to enable you to work your way to salvation.

  • Random66

    The life of a child, regardless of it’s parentage, should be protected and valued. To move the value from life itself to just ‘evidence’ effectively makes that child no more than a pawn to satisfy this man’s version of justice. Has he thought about what happens to this child once a DNA test is done? The father shouldn’t have it, the mother may or may not want it. It becomes a ‘throw away child’. If he is going to pass this into law, he must also make allowance under the law as to the longterm well being of the child. Overall it sounds like this guy just wants to screw these woman over twice – once rape – the second time the legal system, with the ultimate casulty being the child unless it can be placed in a loving home.

    On another note all together having a child in itself does not prove rape – just conception, which may or may not have been consensual. The evidence required to prove rape should be readily available by a medical examination within hours after the event. This bill is nonsense and should be opposed.

    • Blair Mulholland

      It’s a female legislator, which makes it all the more bizarre.

      • Random66

        I was so incensed I overlooked that. I just can’t get over it. This bill is so flawed. Firstly, if the rapist didn’t take precautions to limit his DNA and semen was present which could result in a possible pregnancy this would be readily available on a medical examinaton straight away and would be used as evidence. Secondly, if by chance the woman does not report it immediately and comes foreward with her accusations down the road abit, the DNA of the child proves nothing. All it would prove is that she had sex with the father – not whether it was consensual or not. Crazy.

    • Andrei

      The life of a child, regardless of it’s parentage, should be protected and valued.

      You were doing so well there – and then suddenly you want to “protect and value” the baby’s life, by aborting it.

      Confused?

      • Random66

        I’m not confused. If abortion were readily available when I was conceived I wouldn’t be here. Simple. For obvious reasons I am pro-life and pro adoption. This bill does not care about the life of any resulting child – it is only evidence. This bill does not care about the well being of the raped mother – she is only an incubator. This bill only cares about prosecuting the would be rapist, which as I have said before is flawed thinking, because a child does not prove rape – only conception. I am all for a bill that works towards protecting the right to live of unborn children, but this bill is not it. Just my opinion.

        • Andrei

          OK – yes

          This bill is well intentioned but misguided. The pro aborts love to keep the discussion in the realm of “rape and incest” and away from the vast majority of abortions which involve neither.

          And when the topic is bought up guide it as quickly as possible to these rare but hard cases.

          Not the smartest move to fight the good fight on a battle ground chosen by enemy

      • Rodger T

        How many kids have you adopted ,Andrei?

        I doubt you can handle the truth.

        • Alex

          Don’t be silly Rodger, according to Andrei, moral judgments are what are passed on others, not oneself!

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

        If you believe in protecting and valuing ALL the children then how about you offer to house all the unwanted children that would result from banning abortion…then you can protect and value them all you like…just don;t let your priest near them, we all know how priests “protect” and “value” children…

        • Andrei

          we all know how priests “protect” and “value” children…

          Like this

      • JC

        Well, the fetus in this case is not human but evidence; and once the evidence has been produced in court it gets treated like any other evidence, ie, incinerated, frozen, dumped in the rubbish or whatever.

        And of course the “chain of custody” rule applies here.. once the rape victim reports the rape she is considered the incubator of the evidence and needs to be taken into custody to avoid anyone tampering with the evidence, and held in isolation in a secure environment until delivery of the evidence. Once delivered of the evidence and testimony completed it becomes a moot point what happens next, but I suspect the incubator needs to be held until all possibilities of appeal are exhausted.. a period of some years before the incubator can also be disposed of in an approved manner.

        I like this legislator’s thinking.. she wants to preserve evidence in a sensible and logical manner.. why haven’t we thought of this before?

        JC

69%