Shen reports: "Should a recently introduced bill in New Mexico become law, rape victims will be required to carry their pregnancies to term during their sexual assault trials or face charges of 'tampering with evidence.'"
In New Mexico, women who are raped would have to carry pregnancy to term or face prison. (photo: Getty Images)
New Mexico Bill Would Imprison Rape Victims Who Receive Abortions
25 January 13
hould a recently introduced bill in New Mexico become law, rape victims will be required to carry their pregnancies to term during their sexual assault trials or face charges of "tampering with evidence."
Under HB 206, if a woman ended her pregnancy after being raped, both she and her doctor would be charged with a felony punishable by up to 3 years in state 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.
Sexual assault trials are infamously grueling for survivors, who are often subjected to character assassination and other attempts to discredit their accounts. State Rep. Cathrynn Brown's (R) bill would add the forced choice between prison or an unwanted pregnancy to these proceedings.
After several failed GOP candidates, including Todd Akin (R-MO) and Richard Mourdock (R-IN), made offensive comments about rape victims during the last election season, Republican consultants launched sensitivity training to teach candidates how to avoid talking about rape. But GOP policy speaks for itself. At the federal level, former vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a failed bill that would negate sexual assault that are not deemed "forcible rape." And another New Mexico lawmaker, Gov. Susana Martinez (R), advanced a proposal to require women who become pregnant from rape to prove they were "forcibly raped" in order to qualify for childcare assistance.
In addition to burdening victims of sexual assault, Brown's bill also reveals some hypocrisy in the anti-abortion community. While anti-choice advocates maintain that a fetus should be afforded the full rights of personhood, charging abortion as "tampering with evidence" effectively turns the fetus into an object. This isn't the first time so-called pro-life supporters have dropped the fetal personhood crusade when it was convenient - last year, a Catholic hospital in Colorado reversed its stance on fetal personhood in a malpractice suit, arguing in court that the term "person" should only apply to individuals who have already been born.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
|
17 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
What is makes illegal is "a person
committing criminal sexual penetration or incest procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of the person's act of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime."
So, the only person who can be charged here is the person who committed the rape or incest, and only if they cause or coerce the victim into an abortion in order to get rid of the evidence.
Pretty much 100% opposite what is written above.
Let's not do the same misrepresentati on that the other side is so often guilty of.
Does RSN review articles for accuracy before posting them? It only took me a few minutes.
What we have hear is a woman, first raped by a criminal, and then raped by the state.
I will not use the crude language, but I am sure you all know what I mean
As a woman, you can't win
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0206.pdf.
And it's exactly as RSN---and now many other news sites--- have reported.
Brown is obviously pro life and probably more motivated by that than by concern for victims, but I think this is being made into something that it isn't.
But be that as it may, if you want to use a fetus as evidence, an abortion is almost required in order to get a good DNA sample. And either reading would put the doctor in jeopardy so it won't get done no matter which interpretation you chose. And it will certainly proscribe any rape center from giving the morning after pill to a victim.
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.
Note that the whole of this amendment rests on "with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime." No intent = no tampering. Clearly, the VICTIM has no "intent to destroy evidence." Furthermore, the embryo, hopefully not fetus, as evidence can be preserved by the authorities following the same rules of chain of custody that apply to any other form of evidence. The victim of a shooting is not required to keep the bullet in his body until after his attacker is caught, prosecuted and convicted. The bullet is removed and preserved as evidence. Ms Brown may have intended this amendment to prohibit abortions but it falls far short of that goal.
So if you don't like RSN -piss off and join a reactionary post -if you really want to exchange continuous vacuity!
As Americans are sleepwalking or giving their representatives permission to legislate against humanity Republcans have and will continue to propose and pass laws that will take society back more than 100 years.
Republcians will sanction rape, never punish the rapist, and have reduced women to just an egg to be ferterlized. Same on Americans who support this.
This law only serves to complicate she said/he said in the court room.
Regardless of your critique, this law is meaningless and a step toward making abortion illegal while placing personhood on a fetus that is now determined as evidence. If you don't see the slippery slope here then I'm concerned.
Indiscriminatel y outraging our sense of morality indulges our "pissed off American", but a misguided righteousness makes us look like fools.
Still, you ask a lot of RSN. Their submissions are there to be picked at, not adopted as gospel. Instead, ask what corroborates an article. Huffington Post seems to think something of it. What are they referencing?
We fault the Right, for their lockstep spew of partisan bile, happily discounting them for their imprecise representations . Allowing similarly inexact manipulations by individuals and groups with opposite interests, makes us little different from those we castigate for the same reason.
Congratulations , on not simply joining with part of the problem, and looking beyond what is on the surface of things. There need to be a great many more that do.
More at http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/cathrynn_brown_wants_to_abort_mission/.
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 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.
As is generally the case, the bill is written in a style that is not immediately clear and can be subject to interpretion (therefore, the court system). The first ten words of paragraph B might seem to indicate that a pregnant woman who procured an abortion; the last nine words might be interpreted to impose illegality only if the abortion was an attempt to cover up the crime that caused the pregnancy.
What knocked me out is the fact that two women support this cruel measure. Wonder if either has ever been raped. Fat chance.
Of course, that would be if their real intent was to save the evidence, which it probably isn't.
Oh, ye of little faith. Tell me that you don't believe that the good legislators of NM have an ulterior motive. Just because their stated reason doesn't match their act, in fact it contradicts it (as you note), doesn't mean that they are thinking of anything but the good of the victim. And I just saw a pig flying by my window, too.
As originally drafted, HB206 adds the NM's current tampering with evidence provisions specifically related to abortions, stating, "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." Commas CAN make a difference, but, as drafted, it is possible that a woman pregnant as the result of sexual assault or incest could face prosecution and the expense and anguish of arguing that the law was not intended to punish victims. It is wise to look to the belief system, commitments, and actions of the sponsor BEFORE accepting her assurances as to what her intent is in initiating this legislation.
These phoneys do not give a rat's a$$ for the 'baby' AFTER it is born (cutting 'welfare', healthcare, help,etc. ) and certainly not for the [e.g., incested] girl or [e.g., raped] woman who should be considered a PERSON first and their twisted version of it — a [n unwilling!] 'mother' only secondarily.
"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."
I am no lawyer but this seems disturbingly open-ended to me. There could be legal repercussions that the author of the bill had not intended. I would like to see legal experts weigh in on the issue.
How can 'intent to destroy evidence' be proved in these circumstances? Sounds to me that 'intent to destroy evidence' will be the charge whether or not applicable. Most pregnant victims of rape would say they can't bear to have the baby of the man who raped them. What woman in that situation would say, "My intention was to tamper with and destroy evidence." ???
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/cathrynn_brown_wants_to_abort_mission/
...btw..she is an attorney. She sits on the New Mexico state Legislature's Judiciary Committee. If anyone should know how to draft a bill which is clear and specific...it should be her. She was trying to sneak one through...which is chromosome defect in many politicians but apparently moreso in the case of Republicans.
I read the bill. It states that "procuring...an abortion, or ...coercing another to obtain an abortion...with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime". Whatever the intent of the legislator who wrote the bill, there's no question that, as written, the rape victim could be charged with tampering with evidence, as aborting a pregnancy clearly intends to destroy the pregnancy. If the author of the bill did not mean to leave victims of rape in danger of being charged, the bill needs to be rewritten to reflect that.
It is all just smoke and mirrors. Until there are two hundred thousand really, really pissed off people on Capital Hill (all at the same time – with base ball bats, or 2 x 2s) raising some serious hell against the Lunatics, absolutely nothing is ever, ever going to happen to these totally bought and paid for by the richest 50 people in the world that are becoming more and more powerful with each passing rigged election thanks to the stupid people.
How much success have you had with the TOTALLY NON VIOLENT protests over the last few years?
I’m no fan of Sarah’s but this comment is just so appropriate. So how is that Hopei, Changie working out for you now?
Be afraid America be very afraid!
Todd
Nowhere does it say it applies only to the person who commited the rape.
"B.Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another .190749.31 to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of 2 criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to 3 destroy evidence of the crime.
4 [B.] Whoever commits tampering with the evidence shall be punished as follows:"
It does specify that it is a fetus that is the result of rape or insect coming under this law, but it does NOT limit the crime to a particular person - but ANYONE who facilitates the abortion under those circumstances.
You need to re-read the bill.
"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” and states “whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished”
What jprny has added is an attempt at rope-a-dope that appears on rep. Brown's web site not the legislation actually introduced.
The moral outrage of Aviva Shen is genuine and authentic. The jprny comment is inaccurate spin.
"the existence of a fetus is no evidence of rape or incest whatsoever. Not only is pregnancy not evidentiary of rape, it could not even rise to the level of creating a presumption of a crime. If it could, then any pregnant woman would be presumed to have been raped while a women who did not become pregnant would be presumed not have been sexually assaulted."
Some cases of 'date rape' do end in conviction and do produce a baby--claim the victim. While the rapist may not incur a long jail sentence, he may be sued for child support. If the baby has been aborted there is no way to prove the child is his.
Notice the (R) after the names of all the politicians mentioned in this article? What is it with these goons who say they want 'small government', yet want it prying into AND AFFECTING the most personal and private decisions imaginable?
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN IF YOU VALUE AMERICA OR OUR FUTURE!
I now know there's another "Torquemada," this time in New Mexico.
If the state is taking charge of the fetus in loco parentis, then the state is open to being sued. The rape victim can sue the state for all costs, lost income, etc. I never seen a proposal like this that lasted ten minutes once the promoters found out that having their way would definitely raise their taxes.
Christ, they'll be bringing back the "Auto-da-Fey", the torture chamber and burnings at the stake next!
New Mexico and Arizona should be allowed to secede. Let's see how long they can get along on their own and under the legal systems they are recreating in the warped image of some lawmakers.
So So Senator Reid managed to grease the skids and make some minor procedural changes to senate rules. No Real Filibuster controls. Mitch caved in!!! Laughable.
What is amazing to me is that the Senate considers itself so holy that it doesn't think there can be any outside pressure on the idiotic Sacrosanct Senate rules. Well it is a new world and it has organized, committed, educated and wired activists such as myself. And guess what most of us are sick of the holy undemocratic club known as the senate. There is no equal representation at all, 2 reps from each state. It is just a gentleman's club that once in awhile lets a poor boy like you in. The fact that McCain and others were allowed to vet Susan Rice before she was even nominated proves that. The club wanted their boy, Kerry.
Well guess what eventually committed educated activists are going to force a constitutional convention, that will abolish the senate, double the size of the House, and eliminate the electoral college. So you and club members keep greasing the skids. It make take another 50 to 100 hears but you club will be abolished.
(Love your avatar, wrknight!)
There is no legislative immunity for criminal conduct.
And I don't get how any woman can support anybody interfering with their privacy, their sole right to control their bodies, to allow another to impose their religious beliefs on them. next thing you know they will want to disengfranchise women from voting.
The people who introduce these bills and those who support them, are barbareans.
But a pregnancy is not part of the rape it is the result of it. It can't even be detected or determined at the time the evidence of rape is collected ( semen sample, bruises & abrasions) in fact a positive pregnancy test result during the collection of rape evidence would indicate the women was pregnant prior to the rape. Therefore it would seem the rapist could be charged with endangering the fetus. Also since pregnancy couldn't be verified immediately after the rape there is no reason the victim couldn't take the morning after pill.
It would seem that the results of an abortion would provide specific hard evidence of rape. The remains can be preserved, precise fetal age determined & DNA tested for a match with the rapist. An actual normal birthdates, however, can vary from 28 - 40 wks dependent on the number of previous pregnancy & other variables.
This is a foolish law that shows the right wing evangelicals & their political supporters will go to any length to impose their religious values on others. We must do whatever we can to prevent this proposed legislation from passing. Rape victims suffer enough. Now being forced to make the choice of carry a fetus to term or freeing & not naming the rapist is going too far.
E N O U G H!
That is modern woman's lot in life to accept being raped, used and abused. The openness about the visciousness is flabbergasting and repeated in every nation on every day. We are owned by the state which is owned by the rich and every denial dodge is bullshit. I don't care if your wallet is full: you are a slave in a maze.Turn to belief, turn to prayer, take aspirin for the pain in your political rectum. That is what your priests tell you is the solution.
Join Occupy.Bypass the state.
The idiot who thought this chicanery up doesn't have the reasoning power of a nematode nor the moral standards of one!
RSS feed for comments to this post