Another Republican (a woman, no less) who's clueless about rape

[rushmc 23]

Hi Amazon!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[regulator 0]

Quote

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

Quote

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As '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.

This proposal is just as preposterous as the assault weapons ban feinstein proposed. Both are equally ludicrous.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

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

Quote

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As '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.

This proposal is just as preposterous as the assault weapons ban feinstein proposed. Both are equally ludicrous.

Ignore the lies. Read the actual bill.

It makes it criminal for a rapist to coerce the victim to get an abortion to destroy evidence. It does not say the victim can not get an abortion. Legally, it is clear enough. But it could have been written just a little better to keep lay people from getting carried away.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[regulator 0]

Thank you for clarifying. This wouldnt be the first time the liberal media has distorted the facts.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Thank you for clarifying. This wouldnt be the first time the liberal media has distorted the facts.

There is a lot of knee's out of place
thats for sure

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Remster 30]

Quote

Ignore the lies. Read the actual bill.

It makes it criminal for a rapist to coerce the victim to get an abortion to destroy evidence.

Read the bill yourself.

It makes it a criminal offence for a rapist to coerce the victim, but also the victim to obtain an abortion

Quote

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.

Bolding mine. Yes, it states the intent would be to destroy the evidence, but why make the victim included in this?

Remster

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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

Quote

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As '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.

This proposal is just as preposterous as the assault weapons ban feinstein proposed. Both are equally ludicrous.

Ignore the lies. Read the actual bill.

It makes it criminal for a rapist to coerce the victim to get an abortion to destroy evidence. It does not say the victim can not get an abortion. Legally, it is clear enough. But it could have been written just a little better to keep lay people from getting carried away.

Ah, now I see the cause of the lack of clarity. You might be right, but you might also be wrong.

The key language in the bill says:

"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion...."

So, the problem is the ambiguity in legal definition - specifically, what New Mexico law considers to be the legal definition - of the verb "procure", as that word is used in the bill. Does it mean only (a) "to obtain for someone else", or can it also mean (b) "to obtain for oneself"? If it's only (a), then the article is incorrect and you are correct. But if it also includes (b), then the article is correct.

Black's Law Dictionary isn't too helpful, as it leaves it ambiguous: "To initiate a proceeding to cause a thing to be done; to instigate; to contrive, bring about, effect, or cause." OK, still ambiguous in our factual context - i.e., reasonable arguments can be made either way - so not too helpful to us.

Lawyers.com defines procure as: "to obtain, induce, or cause to take place." As I read it, that would seem to include a woman obtaining an abortion for herself.

But the only defintion that matters is New Mexico's definition of Procure. That would require both the time and access to the database to do, and at the moment I don't have either.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Atta boy

[Andy9o8 3]

Update: from the latest news reports, the sponsor of the bill now says that she only intended to go after the rapists, not the pregnant women, so she intends to revise the bill. So it seems to be a tacit admission that the news articles were factually correct, and bill was inartfully drafted.

I don't have a problem with the sponsor's "stated" intent of the her bill, as long as it goes after the rapists/incestors only, and leaves the women the hell alone.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Update: from the latest news reports, the sponsor of the bill now says that she only intended to go after the rapists, not the pregnant women, so she intends to revise the bill. So it seems to be a tacit admission that the news articles were factually correct, and bill was inartfully drafted.

I don't have a problem with the sponsor's "stated" intent of the her bill, as long as it goes after the rapists/incestors only, and leaves the women the hell alone.

If I wasn't such a cynic...

Remster

[promise5 17]

I might take heat for this,but seriously. Do we really need this bill? When they can make sure not one rapist walks,because of some technicality with the laws we already have,then start adding another one. I know flawed logic. oh well.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Andy9o8 3]

Further update: apparently the sponsor's proposed revision simply states: " “prohibiting prosecution of the mother of the fetus.”

(based on this story I just read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/01/25/that-mistaken-new-mexico-abortion-bill-revised/?hpid=z7 )

So what's still wrong with it? Well, that still leaves other victim-friendly people at risk of prosecution. Suppose, say, a rape victim's best friend or sister locates an abortion clinic, schedules the appointment for the victim, and then drives the victim to the clinic for her abortion. Well, by my reading, that helper would still be subject to prosecution for a felony because they're "procuring" or "facilitating" the abortion (see the language of the bill).

That's just wrong.

[ManagingPrime 0]

The prosecution would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to cover up a crime.

[Remster 30]

Quote

The prosecution would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to cover up a crime.

Yeah. During a prosecution that should have never have happened.

Remster

[Bertt 0]

You're pretty much on the mark. This is really more a case of "hey, I'm a legislator now. I need to legislate something !! " The honorable legislator in question here has been in office a couple of years. She's trying to make her mark on history, but the fact is, there are already laws against tampering with a witness or a victim, tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice, etc. This law is not necessary.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

The prosecution would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to cover up. crime.

Yeah. During a prosecution that should have never have happened.

That's a problem that comes part and parcel with nearly all laws. What's the real problem? Is abortion really such a sacrosanct subject that even a law like raises ire?

For the record, I'm VERY pro-abortion.

[davjohns 1]

You're killing me, Andy. You're focused on the actus reus. The point is the mens re. It says the intent must be to destroy evidence. If the girl's intent is to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, no issue. If the friend is helping her put trauma behind her, no problem. It's only the person who is trying to destroy evidence that is committing a crime.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

You're killing me, Andy. You're focused on the actus reus. The point is the mens re. It says the intent must be to destroy evidence. If the girl's intent is to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, no issue. If the friend is helping her put trauma behind her, no problem. It's only the person who is trying to destroy evidence that is committing a crime.

And if her motivation is to just put every physical shred of it behind her, and keep her rapist out of her life forever, and assure she never has to be traumatized again by having to face him in court,
and the helper knowingly aids in that? That could easily be enough to trigger prosecution under the statute, especially in combination with an ambitious, politically partisan DA. No, I think the potential for abuse remains far too great.

[promise5 17]

Quote

Quote

You're killing me, Andy. You're focused on the actus reus. The point is the mens re. It says the intent must be to destroy evidence. If the girl's intent is to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, no issue. If the friend is helping her put trauma behind her, no problem. It's only the person who is trying to destroy evidence that is committing a crime.

And if her motivation is to just put every physical shred of it behind her, and keep her rapist out of her life forever, and assure she never has to be traumatized again by having to face him in court,
and the helper knowingly aids in that? That could easily be enough to trigger prosecution under the statute, especially in combination with an ambitious, politically partisan DA. No, I think the potential for abuse remains far too great.

Andy,the physical side of rape is the easiest to heal. Also, many times its healing to be able to gain justice in a sense by having that person prosecuted. With really good counseling many are ready to face their rapist. But, once again lets tighten the laws we have before we start making new ones.
I'll also add this the baby is just as innocent as the person that was raped. But, that's another debate.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

You're killing me, Andy. You're focused on the actus reus. The point is the mens re. It says the intent must be to destroy evidence. If the girl's intent is to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, no issue. If the friend is helping her put trauma behind her, no problem. It's only the person who is trying to destroy evidence that is committing a crime.

And if her motivation is to just put every physical shred of it behind her, and keep her rapist out of her life forever, and assure she never has to be traumatized again by having to face him in court,
and the helper knowingly aids in that? That could easily be enough to trigger prosecution under the statute, especially in combination with an ambitious, politically partisan DA. No, I think the potential for abuse remains far too great.

If her motivation or that of her assistant is what you describe...no crime. The INTENT must be to destroy evidence. Not to put the incident behind her. And since it would be incredibly difficult to convince a jury that the intent was destruction of evidence when everyone expects a victim to try to put it behind her, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute a victim. You know that.

I agree that it could have been worded better. It should have included something saying, "This law will not be construed to...". But it was clearly not written for the purposes your initial post claimed. What you copied and posted was a blatant lie. I don't hold you responsible. I presume you didn't actually read the law. Or if you did, you were already expecting the worst due to the article and missed the true meaning of the words. You're a smart guy.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jclalor 12]

It sounds to me as just another attempt to continue the erosion of the right to choose. It seems if a rape victim freely chooses to have the fetus aborted, the defense could later argue that there is a lack of evidence for prosecution. While the victim would not be charged with a crime, I think the intent is to prevent abortions for rape victims under the pretext that you need a baby for prosecution of a rape.

Then again, we all know that during a legitimate rape, the "juices don't flow" and pregnancy is not possible.

[Andy9o8 3]

OK, let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? The bill was a barely, barely disguised anti-abortion bill. Its design was first and foremost to intimidate women and especially doctors and abortion clinics for fear of ideologically or politically motivated criminal prosecution (if I was a doctor's lawyer, I'd certainly caution her about the newly-enhanced risk of prosecution and/or jeopardy to her license to practice); and now that the sponsor's been caught with her sensible, plain white panties down, she's trying to rehabilitate.... mainly herself. Just a slow train wreck. So please - let's not be naive and let a discussion about the shoddy drafting of the facade blind us to the true original intent of the bill and true original motivation of its sponsor.

[davjohns 1]

OK. We are going to have to disagree on this one. I don't see any nefarious intent on the part of the legislator. I think it will work as written without hurting victims, but could have been better. You see it as a conspiracy. I continue to attribute most government fuckery to incompetence or laziness rather than actualy malice. I just don't think most of them are smart enough to be criminal masterminds or master manipulators.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

And why are you awake so early on a Saturday anyhow? Go back to bed. You're cranky. lol

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

OK. We are going to have to disagree on this one. I don't see any nefarious intent on the part of the legislator. I think it will work as written without hurting victims, but could have been better. You see it as a conspiracy. I continue to attribute most government fuckery to incompetence or laziness rather than actualy malice. I just don't think most of them are smart enough to be criminal masterminds or master manipulators.

Not "conspiracy" - agenda. Ever since Roe, there's been a consistent pattern of mostly state-level action, mostly legislative and some regulatory, to chip away, bit by bit, one angle out of left field after another (that's an American baseball reference, since you're now a European) at the mostly-unfettered right to obtain an abortion stemming from Roe. Various restrictions on girls under 18, mandatory "counseling" and waiting periods, forcible viewing (for the obvious intimidating effect) of ultrasounds of one's own fetus, etc. Oh, I understand the strategic motivator: to nullify Roe, if not lump-sum, then in whatever increments they can make stick: "if it saves just a few extra children, it's worth it." This is just another "see your five and raise you ten". That's a poker reference. But let's not be naive about what it really is.