Aa
New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html
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."
“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," 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.
“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.“
The bill is unlikely to pass, as Democrats have a majority in both chambers of New Mexico's state legislature.
UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. -- Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.
“New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders,” said Brown. “By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.”
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."
“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," 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.
“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.“
The bill is unlikely to pass, as Democrats have a majority in both chambers of New Mexico's state legislature.
UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. -- Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.
“New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders,” said Brown. “By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.”
“I missed this one,” she said, explaining that when she reviewed the draft of her bill, she missed the language problems that led to misinterpretation of her bill.”
It appears, “I Misspoken” is the latest Fad for politicians when there is a public backlash.
It appears, “I Misspoken” is the latest Fad for politicians when there is a public backlash.
which reads in part.
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.
How bad?
As was covered by Addicting Info earlier today in a piece titled New Mexico Bill Could Turn Pregnancy By Rape Into Evidence And Abortions Into Felonies, the bill put forth by Rep. Brown, House Bill 206, was originally worded so that the law would essentially charge a rape victim who aborts her pregnancy as a third-degree felon for “tampering with evidence” (punishable by up to three years in prison):
“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.”
According to The Huffington Post, Rep. Brown even further elucidated on her intent as follows:
UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. [1.24] — Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.
“New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders,” said Brown. “By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.”
Huh?
Well, even Rep. Brown came to realize how insane that sounds and with the prodding influence of fierce public backlash, she offered a somewhat feeble rethinking of what she put into place. According to a piece that ran later Thursday in the Carlsbad Current-Argus (New Mexico), a somewhat chagrined Brown admitted to at least some measure of her folly.
“I missed this one,” she said, explaining that when she reviewed the draft of her bill, she missed the language problems that led to misinterpretation of her bill.
Albuquerque Rep. Nate Gentry supported Brown’s assertion, adding, “She’s horrified.”
She said the bill is being reworked for clarity.
“Horrified.” She’s a lawyer and a legislator. Didn’t anyone teach her along the way to proofread her work before she publishes it? We writers get killed for getting it wrong, but a legislator who puts a bill on the table?? Wow. Though, to her credit, she did go back in to tweak the verbiage of the bill to specify:
“A person who commits sexual penetration or incest and who procures an abortion of a fetus resulting from the crime with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime is guilty of tampering with evidence, prohibiting prosecution of the mother of the fetus … In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged.”
So, in other words, if the rapist sticks around to convince the rape victim to get an abortion, that’s the crime: “tampering with evidence.” But if that’s the case, and despite Brown’s insistence that “the mother of the fetus would never be charged,” if the rapee agrees to said abortion (and clearly she’d have to be involved), wouldn’t she be a colluder? An accomplice? Dear God, can you see how complicated this could get?
Apparently the urge to push her pro-life agenda into law supersedes logic or complication and Rep. Brown is well-known for her stance on the issue; from Salon:
Brown’s apparent interest in protecting women should be taken within the context of her other pursuits, however, like serving on the board of Carlsbad’s Right to Life chapter, and posting images from the Life Issues Institute on her Facebook page. The Institute describes its mission as “assuring … equal protection under the law for all living humans from the beginning of their biological life at fertilization.”
So given her known political position on the issue of choice, along with the sheer idiocy and heinous “punish the victim” ramifications of House Bill 206, the response was swift and it wasn’t pretty. The story was covered by national media, social media had a heyday with it; Brown removed her contact information from her legislature web page (though the progressive website, ProgressNow New Mexico, conveniently reposted it for interested constituents), and her personal website was pummeled by so many angry respondents, she quickly added a mea culpa of sorts on the home page, illuminating the now-reworked focus of the bill:
This is the bill that I will introduce that protects women and girls from incest and other sex crimes: It makes it clear that the mother of the fetus would never be charged. This bill ensures the prosecution of the offender and protection of the victim.
Will that be enough to assuage her many angry constituents in the state of New Mexico, or do much to ameliorate her now-trending reputation as a right-wing demagogue on a par with Todd Akin and his ilk? Remains to be seen.
She, however, while apparently taken aback by all the fuss, appears to be reveling somewhat in her new-found fame. Bemoaning the fact that she’s been bombarded by hate mail and angry calls, she also made note that Anderson Cooper invited her to his show to discuss the bill:
“I’m really considering it,” Brown said. “It will give me the opportunity to talk about my bill and what I hope it will accomplish, if it passes. It may sound strange coming from a legislator, but I really don’t like the limelight. I would rather go about the work quietly and get the job done. Going on these shows will allow me to set the record straight.” [Source]
Ah, fame. Such a pushover. Just take your religious zealotry, mix it with a little legislative mumbo-jumbo, put a ridiculous ill-thought-out bill on the table, then pretend you’re “horrified.” Fifteen minutes, comin’ up!
When the “war on women” is perpetuated by women, it’s bad enough. When that woman then tries to pretend her intentions are good, only her timing and verbiage might have been a tad off, let’s call it what it is: ********. When it comes to the right, apparently ******** has no gender preference.
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.
How bad?
As was covered by Addicting Info earlier today in a piece titled New Mexico Bill Could Turn Pregnancy By Rape Into Evidence And Abortions Into Felonies, the bill put forth by Rep. Brown, House Bill 206, was originally worded so that the law would essentially charge a rape victim who aborts her pregnancy as a third-degree felon for “tampering with evidence” (punishable by up to three years in prison):
“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.”
According to The Huffington Post, Rep. Brown even further elucidated on her intent as follows:
UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. [1.24] — Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.
“New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders,” said Brown. “By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.”
Huh?
Well, even Rep. Brown came to realize how insane that sounds and with the prodding influence of fierce public backlash, she offered a somewhat feeble rethinking of what she put into place. According to a piece that ran later Thursday in the Carlsbad Current-Argus (New Mexico), a somewhat chagrined Brown admitted to at least some measure of her folly.
“I missed this one,” she said, explaining that when she reviewed the draft of her bill, she missed the language problems that led to misinterpretation of her bill.
Albuquerque Rep. Nate Gentry supported Brown’s assertion, adding, “She’s horrified.”
She said the bill is being reworked for clarity.
“Horrified.” She’s a lawyer and a legislator. Didn’t anyone teach her along the way to proofread her work before she publishes it? We writers get killed for getting it wrong, but a legislator who puts a bill on the table?? Wow. Though, to her credit, she did go back in to tweak the verbiage of the bill to specify:
“A person who commits sexual penetration or incest and who procures an abortion of a fetus resulting from the crime with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime is guilty of tampering with evidence, prohibiting prosecution of the mother of the fetus … In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged.”
So, in other words, if the rapist sticks around to convince the rape victim to get an abortion, that’s the crime: “tampering with evidence.” But if that’s the case, and despite Brown’s insistence that “the mother of the fetus would never be charged,” if the rapee agrees to said abortion (and clearly she’d have to be involved), wouldn’t she be a colluder? An accomplice? Dear God, can you see how complicated this could get?
Apparently the urge to push her pro-life agenda into law supersedes logic or complication and Rep. Brown is well-known for her stance on the issue; from Salon:
Brown’s apparent interest in protecting women should be taken within the context of her other pursuits, however, like serving on the board of Carlsbad’s Right to Life chapter, and posting images from the Life Issues Institute on her Facebook page. The Institute describes its mission as “assuring … equal protection under the law for all living humans from the beginning of their biological life at fertilization.”
So given her known political position on the issue of choice, along with the sheer idiocy and heinous “punish the victim” ramifications of House Bill 206, the response was swift and it wasn’t pretty. The story was covered by national media, social media had a heyday with it; Brown removed her contact information from her legislature web page (though the progressive website, ProgressNow New Mexico, conveniently reposted it for interested constituents), and her personal website was pummeled by so many angry respondents, she quickly added a mea culpa of sorts on the home page, illuminating the now-reworked focus of the bill:
This is the bill that I will introduce that protects women and girls from incest and other sex crimes: It makes it clear that the mother of the fetus would never be charged. This bill ensures the prosecution of the offender and protection of the victim.
Will that be enough to assuage her many angry constituents in the state of New Mexico, or do much to ameliorate her now-trending reputation as a right-wing demagogue on a par with Todd Akin and his ilk? Remains to be seen.
She, however, while apparently taken aback by all the fuss, appears to be reveling somewhat in her new-found fame. Bemoaning the fact that she’s been bombarded by hate mail and angry calls, she also made note that Anderson Cooper invited her to his show to discuss the bill:
“I’m really considering it,” Brown said. “It will give me the opportunity to talk about my bill and what I hope it will accomplish, if it passes. It may sound strange coming from a legislator, but I really don’t like the limelight. I would rather go about the work quietly and get the job done. Going on these shows will allow me to set the record straight.” [Source]
Ah, fame. Such a pushover. Just take your religious zealotry, mix it with a little legislative mumbo-jumbo, put a ridiculous ill-thought-out bill on the table, then pretend you’re “horrified.” Fifteen minutes, comin’ up!
When the “war on women” is perpetuated by women, it’s bad enough. When that woman then tries to pretend her intentions are good, only her timing and verbiage might have been a tad off, let’s call it what it is: ********. When it comes to the right, apparently ******** has no gender preference.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/25/horrified-rep-cathrynn-brown-backtracks-on-rape-baby-is-evidence-bill/
I will never argue with how someone feels about any issue, pro choice or pro life. However, I do wish that those fighting so hard for for the rights of the unborn would also really think about the rights of the women victimized by crimes like this. Their rights should certainly count to.
just trying to get her name in the headline. "
Yup playing man with the big boys.
Yup playing man with the big boys.
I think we all see the motivation behind it, but nevertheless it is appalling that they would even consider such a thing.
I would hope that she is ready to accept responsibility for the lives of all these babies born from rape that she insisted would come to full term.
I am somewhere between prolife and pro choice--sounds funny I know but I really understand pro lifers. However for me the life of a zygote is not the life of a baby.
Would this exclude the morning after pill? It is insane.
I would hope that she is ready to accept responsibility for the lives of all these babies born from rape that she insisted would come to full term.
I am somewhere between prolife and pro choice--sounds funny I know but I really understand pro lifers. However for me the life of a zygote is not the life of a baby.
Would this exclude the morning after pill? It is insane.
I can't believe such a law will pass, and I doubt Cathrynn Brown believes it will pass either. To me this looks like she is just trying to get her name in the headline.
Well, as I mentioned, the pro life women I know see it as a crusade to save those babies. They'd be willing to take drastic measures and I see that as part of that. I don't agree with it but those deep to the bone pro life folks can be pretty radical. I have no idea what her constituency is. There are pockets that really take pro life to the extreme.
Nygirl, I hear what you are saying. You are looking at it fromt he trauma a woman has experienced and I agree. They are looking at it from the idea of saving a baby regardless of the situation--- that an unborn child is innocent. They feel noble in their quest to save a baby. And are desperate enough to wrap a bow on it to say it is for the sake of justice.
I'm not for the law and see it as ridiculous personally.
Nygirl, I hear what you are saying. You are looking at it fromt he trauma a woman has experienced and I agree. They are looking at it from the idea of saving a baby regardless of the situation--- that an unborn child is innocent. They feel noble in their quest to save a baby. And are desperate enough to wrap a bow on it to say it is for the sake of justice.
I'm not for the law and see it as ridiculous personally.
Exactly.
I cannot believe it will pass.
I cannot believe it will pass.
Yes excellent point Michael. Since you can't get pregnant by rape I guess there is no issue here. :-O
Cant they get DNA from the fetus? I can't see how this logic can hold up that they MUST remain pregnant. Insulting.
Cant they get DNA from the fetus? I can't see how this logic can hold up that they MUST remain pregnant. Insulting.
No she's being ridiculed for not understanding how serious this can be to a woman since she IS a woman. This is not pro-life versus pro-choice agenda it's really about being the victim of rape and having to have consequences put upon you because of a small group of narrow minded people.
I thought the GOP was always saying there is TOO much government already in our lives?
I thought the GOP was always saying there is TOO much government already in our lives?
Sorry I misunderstood you.
Personally, I think this woman is deplorable. And I don't hate pro-life people though I do disagree with them. This is a sneaky stupid and heartless way of advancing an agenda. I am appalled that a woman would initiate something like this because in my opinion it completely denies the reality of pregnancy resulting from rape. This bill is so disingenuous that I believe it insults the pro-life sentiment by focusing of the preservation of a criminal prosecution evidence as the reason to prohibit abortion. Come on now!
Personally, I think this woman is deplorable. And I don't hate pro-life people though I do disagree with them. This is a sneaky stupid and heartless way of advancing an agenda. I am appalled that a woman would initiate something like this because in my opinion it completely denies the reality of pregnancy resulting from rape. This bill is so disingenuous that I believe it insults the pro-life sentiment by focusing of the preservation of a criminal prosecution evidence as the reason to prohibit abortion. Come on now!
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314640/abortion-and-gender-gap-numbers-ramesh-ponnuru#
Wait, not Arizona------- New Mexico. Sorry.
NO not me. The lady who is from Arizona. She's taking heat for having female parts and coming up with this idea. It's not a good idea but in truth, those i know personally that are very into the pro life thing are actually women.
I think if you go back and re-read this thread you'll be hard pressed to find evidence of any attack directed at you. I did and I don't see what you're referring to.
Really, the only war on women I've witnessed lately is the one in this thread against this particular woman.
I'm a woman and have never felt like there was a war against me from the Republican party. So no. There is no war on women in my opinion from the GOP.
The GOP has no war on women at ALL do they?
** staunch
Hm. The stuanch pro lifers I know are mostly women.
I think it means a woman acting like an idiotic man in order to get along with idiotic real men.
I don't know what that means. Playing man with the big boys.
This is a really weird thread.
This is a really weird thread.
I'm going to go out on a limb and bet this woman has never been raped. So, she is just ignorant to the situation and doesn't have the common sense to understand that this is not about just physically carrying an unwanted pregnancy - most Americans completely understand this logic but this WOMAN seems to feel that playing MAN with the big boys will make her name.
Well it sure did. A few of them.
Well it sure did. A few of them.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
