FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

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)
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

By Aviva Shen, ThinkProgress

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.

 

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

 
+52 # Kram55 2013-01-25 07:35
Classic "Insult to Injury" plan.
 
 
+53 # Eduardo3 2013-01-25 08:08
No, worse, actually. It's adding injury to injury.
 
 
+35 # robniel 2013-01-25 14:34
Another example of the smaller, less intrusive government as practiced by the tea-bagger wing of the GOP.
 
 
+11 # jprny 2013-01-25 07:36
I expect better than this from RSN. This got me angry, so I went to send a message to the person who wrote the bill. On her site, there is a copy of the bill, and it isn't at all what this author says that it is.

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.
 
 
+15 # Binks 2013-01-25 08:08
Does this mean that if the woman who was raped desires an abortion and follows through, she will not be charged with a felony crime? I've read this story many times yesterday and they all imply that the victim would be charged. Please explain your position.
 
 
+16 # Barbara K 2013-01-25 13:24
We all know that all the law needs is a DNA test on the fetus, this is just an attempt to govern the victim's body, and punish her for being a victim again.
 
 
+6 # X Dane 2013-01-25 20:08
Barbara K.

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
 
 
+11 # Barbara K 2013-01-26 12:19
X Dane: It just occurred to me that women CAN win. Never ever vote in a Republican to any office. Come on Ladies, let us show our power. Vote straight Democratic; and just never ever again a Republican. That is how women can win. We have our men who will support us and vote with us. We can do this.
 
 
+29 # mpatrick 2013-01-25 08:23
Hey jprny..It's not at all clear what bill you were reading, but you can access the entire submitted bill at:
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.
 
 
-8 # jprny 2013-01-25 09:41
Thanks for that. She edited the copy on her web site. I still think this reads as a way to prosecute someone who coerces a victim to have an abortion, not the victim herself.
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.
 
 
+5 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-25 16:47
I'm not sure. One reading of the bill that mpatrick linked to can be that the key point is "with intent to destroy evidence of the crime" but another reading is that the key point is "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." I would bet that in any of the places where feti are sacred until they take their first breath the latter interpretation will dominate.

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.
 
 
+7 # tref 2013-01-25 17:01
The entire "bill" is:
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.
 
 
-44 # Michael_K 2013-01-25 08:25
I think the vacuous partisanship that is rampant in our society has infected RSN as well.
 
 
+24 # reiverpacific 2013-01-25 10:03
Quoting Michael_K:
I think the vacuous partisanship that is rampant in our society has infected RSN as well.

So if you don't like RSN -piss off and join a reactionary post -if you really want to exchange continuous vacuity!
 
 
+27 # Regina 2013-01-25 08:33
I'm not so sure of your interpretation of the language you quote from this bill. In particular, if the victim herself decides to have an abortion, which the perp can always claim, he's free of his crime??? I'm appalled that a female legislator, even a Republican, would sneak such absolution for a rapist. In reading the passage that the article's author includes, the abortion becomes "tampering with the evidence." So the victim must bear the child since getting to trial takes so much time? That's vicious.
 
 
+30 # wwway 2013-01-25 08:36
Obviously there's nothing in the bill requiring the rapist to be ID'd and forced to support and or raise the progeny.
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.
 
 
+14 # wwway 2013-01-25 08:47
How is rape evidence determined? Think about this. What is determined as evidence of cause or coerciveness? Proof of intent?
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.
 
 
+15 # Regina 2013-01-25 11:28
How is rape evidence determined? Republicans have spoken: it must be "legitimate," whatever that means in the ears of the utterers. Unfortunately, there's no brain between those ears.
 
 
+1 # cafetomo 2013-01-25 09:24
An excellent point.

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.
 
 
+3 # jprny 2013-01-25 09:38
Apparently she edited the copy of the bill on her web site. But, the official copy does say that the crime is doing this with "intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution, or conviction", which doesn't seem to apply to the victim in any case.

More at http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/cathrynn_brown_wants_to_abort_mission/.
 
 
+6 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-25 16:50
But it can apply to the doctor that does the abortion and especially to a rape center that gives the victim the morning after pill. That means that there will be fewer abortions and more pregnancies.
 
 
+1 # John_Fisher 2013-01-27 13:29
Right. And when I tried (twice) to use the NM Legislature link that mpatrick cited, I got a 403, "removed". I think this was a sneaky attempt to get one more prohibition of abortion on the books, and she only got embarrassed after she got CAUGHT.
 
 
+9 # Quickmatch 2013-01-25 09:42
From the provided website

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.
 
 
+12 # Pickwicky 2013-01-25 11:47
Quickmatch--tha nks for clarification. So the poor victim who aborted the 'fruit' of rape is guilty of destroying evidence and therefore subject to imprisonment?

What knocked me out is the fact that two women support this cruel measure. Wonder if either has ever been raped. Fat chance.
 
 
+17 # Kimc 2013-01-25 13:01
but an abortion does not in any way tamper with the evidence of the crime: the fetus still exists when dead and out of the body of the victim. And it's even easier to get genetic evidence of paternity with the fetus external. What the law should mandate is saving the fetus after the abortion rather than trashing it.
Of course, that would be if their real intent was to save the evidence, which it probably isn't.
 
 
+5 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-25 16:54
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.
 
 
+9 # Vermont Grandma 2013-01-25 16:46
Not so fast, jpryn. This bill's sponsor is a serves on the board of Carlsbad, NM Right to Life chapter, and has posted 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.”

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.
 
 
+2 # Cassandra2012 2013-01-26 17:08
Should be called 'right to birth' and 'pro-birth', definitely not 'pro-life'!!

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.
 
 
+8 # Skeeziks 2013-01-26 06:16
With this correction in mind, I would also add that when a fetus is carried through term and is born I would want to see all opposed to early abortion to "man up" and pay for the child's care and education through college or whatever choice of educational route that child would want to follow.
 
 
+16 # WFBrenner 2013-01-25 07:43
Some of New Mexico's legislators are truly unbelievable! What is it with the voters in New Mexico that they put these clowns into office (and even reelect them)?
 
 
+6 # Pickwicky 2013-01-25 11:47
WFBrenner: Caught it from Arizona.
 
 
0 # John_Fisher 2013-01-27 13:39
WFBrenner, Pickwicky: Or from Texas - the clownery is rampant among our dearly elected too.
 
 
0 # Kimberly999 2013-01-28 16:46
Radiation brain damage from Nuclear testing? The "Hills have eyes, not frontal lobes..."
 
 
+20 # Bev 2013-01-25 07:50
Whether or not a fetus is a person may not be solved in this generation to the satisfaction of those of varying philosophies and ideologies. But here it becomes a political issue and the same old struggle for male supremacy and power. That the bills mentioned here were introduced by women who take the "high moral ground", doesn't alter the fact that most religious institutions and their followers subscribe to patriarchal dominance.
 
 
+12 # Gooseknoll 2013-01-25 08:00
Huffington and Reader Supported read the bill correctly..... Amazing while Zina laws are being outlawed in India, they're being resurrected in the US.
 
 
+17 # Eduardo3 2013-01-25 08:07
jprny: That may be her intent, but I just checked the New Mexico legislature's website and the actual text of the bill on their site does NOT specify that only the rapist can be charged with that crime. Here's what it says:
"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.
 
 
+7 # Pickwicky 2013-01-25 11:57
Abortion doctors and nurses are clearly be in jeopardy if this bill passes. Perhaps even parents and friends who advocate for abortion.

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." ???
 
 
0 # Onterryo 2013-01-25 08:10
I think you should check just a little further:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/cathrynn_brown_wants_to_abort_mission/
 
 
+4 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-25 17:03
But she still has left the worst part in that says that whoever performs the abortion can be charged. That means that there will be no abortions or morning after pills at rape centers. I suspect that is her primary goal.
 
 
+2 # lighthouse 2013-01-26 21:12
What it sounds like is all rapists will get off scott-free in NM. They can't out law abortions or emergency contraception. That's unconstitutiona l.
 
 
+9 # RnR 2013-01-25 08:14
I guess New Mexico has its share of ignorant shills
 
 
+17 # Onterryo 2013-01-25 08:19
Follow up to my first reply:

...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.
 
 
+15 # susanguare 2013-01-25 08:19
@jprny:
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.
 
 
+7 # Regina 2013-01-25 11:32
The author is a Republican. Ipso facto, she meant it.
 
 
+21 # Reyn 2013-01-25 08:25
Actually - while the Representative has said that she will clarify the language in the bill -- it originally simply said that "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,” In that wording, not the wording that you just listed, it clearly can be used to accuse anyone who procures or facilitates the abortion of a rape baby of a (class c) felony. So you are absolutely incorrect. The language of the bill certainly did, as written, allow and would be used to bring about the arrest of rape victims and their doctors simply for the act of abortion. Further, Ms. Brown is an attorney by trade. Do not think for a MOMENT that she did not know what she wrote and the clarified document (which I think you quoted) should be examined with a COMB to make certain there aren't other legal bombs in it. It was almost certainly supposed to slip under the radar.
 
 
+4 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-25 17:06
The revised bill at Salon (see onterryo above) while it protects the victim, does nothing to protect the doctor performing the abortion. How many abortions will be performed if no one is willing to do them?
 
 
+13 # Citizen Mike 2013-01-25 08:48
"With the intent to destroy the evidence of a crime"? The OBVIOUS WORKAROUND here would be to have the procedure and then SAVE THE ABORTED FETUS IN A BOTTLE TO BE PRESENTED AT THE TRIAL AS EVIDENCE, together with the testimony or affadavit of the surgeon as to from where it was removed and on what date. It's a good thing these hateful enemies of women's rights do not think clearly.
 
 
+12 # Anarchist 23 2013-01-25 12:18
That suggestion-save the aborted fetus in a bottle- is nearly as lovely as the original bill. I won't even try to imagine what the victim would feel like on the witness stand having to confront that 'evidence' In case you don't watch the CSI shows, there is something called a rape kit. It is used for evidence. This bill, however written is an abomination. It is indeed a 'back door way to criminalize abortion'
 
 
-22 # HowardMH 2013-01-25 08:53
How is that Hopei, Changie working out for you now?
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!
 
 
+5 # Anarchist 23 2013-01-25 12:21
Until people look beyond dichotomies they will not see what is happening. If you act out of fear you will only bring on more fear.Violence is no solution. As Socrates said (paraphrase here): Better to suffer evil than to do it. I see what is happening but I refuse to be afraid.
 
 
+4 # SOF 2013-01-26 14:16
Howard, You're right. If Romney had won, this bill would be unnecessary as abortion would be illegal. Period. There would be no exception for rape or the mother"s or child's health. The sliver of choice was between hopei changie or hopeless. And not just for women.
 
 
+15 # Todd Williams 2013-01-25 09:00
I'm still confused here. When, if ever, does a rapist coerce his victim into getting an abortion? Is the fetus ever used as evidence? What makes this bill necessary? Can someone answer this? Thanks.
Todd
 
 
+9 # Cat 2013-01-25 09:03
to jprny - Not sure what you read, But the link to the pdf of the actual bill is in this article: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/342059

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.
 
 
+9 # MidwestDick 2013-01-25 09:04
Here is excerpts from the bill (206) actually introduced.

"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.
 
 
+8 # brilyn37 2013-01-25 09:11
Since the abortion follows from the rape, maybe companion legislation could make it a capital offence for rapists if the atrocity leads to an abortion. Wouldn't this be just as absurd?
 
 
+14 # Cat 2013-01-25 09:32
Good Lord. And, from another article...this is a really, really good point:

"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."
 
 
+2 # Pickwicky 2013-01-25 12:05
Cat--but in the event the perp is convicted of the rape and the woman he raped can produce the child of that rape-- who can be proven by DNA tests to be the perp's child, then the rapist can be made to pay child support.

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.
 
 
+1 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-25 17:10
Not necessarily. Taking a sample of DNA at the time would be all that would be necessary to prove paternity. And in the case of an abortion, child support payments aren't an issue.
 
 
+9 # Todd Williams 2013-01-25 09:42
Why would a viable fetus be necessary evidence to prove a rape? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that rape can be proven whether or not the woman gets pregnant due to that rape. Also, what of the raped woman was already pregnant? What if she decided to have an abortion to eliminate the fetus from a previous, consensual sexual encounter? Can somebody please address these questions?
 
 
+22 # photojack53 2013-01-25 09:52
Appalling! What went through the head of the author of this ridiculous bill? Take a DNA sample for 'evidence' and abort at will. Would any sane woman want to bring into this world the baby of their rapist? Or worse, be forced to from an UNCONSCIONABLE law like this? Let's hope this bill is killed before it becomes law.
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!
 
 
+7 # in deo veritas 2013-01-25 11:47
As rotten as this country has become one should think long and hard about bringing an innocent life into it (by choice) when there are so many like this holding public office and endangering its future if not its very life.
 
 
+22 # Todd Williams 2013-01-25 09:57
What percentage of rapes lead to pregnancy? Of those women who become pregnant, what percentage get abortions? I see absolutely no reason for this legislation other than to stop abortions due to any reason whatsoever. It obviously follows the same inane statements made during the last election by some GOP office seekers. When are these people going to stop interferring with women's bodies?
 
 
+5 # in deo veritas 2013-01-25 11:42
Only when they are put behind bars or somewhere else where they have no power to interfere with any of us wsill they stop.
 
 
+7 # robniel 2013-01-25 14:37
Once again a medical problem becomes a legal problem when politicians stick their nose in other peoples' business.
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2013-01-26 17:13
Quite! Plato said that justice was minding one's own business!
 
 
+10 # David Starr 2013-01-25 10:06
"Tampering with evidence" = an excuse for religious fanaticism. What else could it be? Evidence? Hell, no.

I now know there's another "Torquemada," this time in New Mexico.
 
 
+9 # in deo veritas 2013-01-25 11:39
It is this insane fanaticism and denial of everything Christ taught that is causing so many to turn their backs on organized religion. Those who have a conscience cannot go along with the hate being spewed at them "in the name of God".
 
 
+11 # MylesJ 2013-01-25 10:18
Sue the Bastard
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.
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2013-01-25 10:21
Note yet again, that it's always men who push these medievalist proposals.
Christ, they'll be bringing back the "Auto-da-Fey", the torture chamber and burnings at the stake next!
 
 
+12 # tbcrawford 2013-01-25 10:32
This discussion makes me sick. DNA has long been admitted evidence in cases of rape. Only egregious hate of women would encourage this horrendous legislation to force a victim to continue a repugnant pregnancy and then pay the added abuse of incarceration. Arizona legislators seems inspired by treatment of woman and rape in India.
 
 
+1 # Barkingcarpet 2013-01-25 10:37
Gang rape the politicians and lock THEM up! Jerks.
 
 
+7 # DaveM 2013-01-25 10:56
Insane. I have no other word for it.

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.
 
 
+5 # in deo veritas 2013-01-25 11:35
secede hell. Kick them out and let the cartels take them over (if they haven't already).
 
 
+4 # Anarchist 23 2013-01-25 12:26
Excuse me, but NM does not want to secede. this legislation is appalling but is not representative of all of NM. and because NM contains so many military bases, plus training 'ground' for Predator drones, it would be prevented from leaving. It is a more culturally diverse state than AZ, even in the Albq. Santa Fe corridor. It has two democratic senators.
 
 
+5 # JonK 2013-01-25 11:26
Ms. Brown has rewritten the bill since its first introduction, claiming it was a drafting error. Meanwhile, she has taken down her contact information from her website.
 
 
+3 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-25 17:14
But her rewrite as recorded on Salon still makes the doctor liable. The only change she made was to add to it that the victim will not be charged. And if the doctor is liable, there won't be any abortions, which is the intent of the bill in the first place.
 
 
+8 # in deo veritas 2013-01-25 11:33
If this bill is as the article says, it is clear evidence that the insanity of Arizona has crossed the state line. There seems to be no depth that the right wing lunatics will not descend. As one man said "if they were as small in stature as they are in principle, they could stand flat-fotted and kiss a gnat's derriere without bending their knees". No doubt an understatement.
 
 
+3 # in deo veritas 2013-01-25 11:34
No doubt the idea of keeping the fetus to term "as evidence" would simply be to later use it for cannon fodder like so many of our have been in wars to enrich the merchants of death.
 
 
+4 # bfkron 2013-01-25 11:37
Anybody still wonder why the dumb repugnants are getting their ass kicked in elections? Look no more than to this bimbo from NM. She is an ultra bimbo!
 
 
+2 # zagnut 2013-01-25 12:10
Dear Senator Reid,
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.
 
 
+6 # wrknight 2013-01-25 13:42
As George Carlin used to say, "Think how stupid the average person is, then realize half the people are stupider". But why is it that the politicians are always in the stupider half?
 
 
0 # Pickwicky 2013-01-26 10:40
wrknight--becau se the politicians need the votes of the stupid, the stupider, and the stupidest!

(Love your avatar, wrknight!)
 
 
+3 # BoothSC 2013-01-25 14:06
If the tissue is preserved for evidence why would it be an issue? It's a backdoor for antiabortion.
 
 
+3 # angelfish 2013-01-25 14:23
Cruel, inhuman and totally punitive on the part of these "legislators" in New Mexico. They must harbor some really deep seated hatred for women, as evidenced by trying to make this kind of Bull-Puckey, Law in that State. Women of New Mexico AND the rest of the Country! Close your legs and stop "servicing" these Cretins. Until they realize that women MEAN business, they will continue to rape us in EVERY way they can! WE out-number them. DON'T give in to this kind of Draconian punishment! We are NOT second class citizens YET!
 
 
+7 # ghostperson 2013-01-25 15:21
So why don't we impose criminal sanctions upon legislators who vote for the bill for being accessories to the fact of rape since their position is "pro rape" and endeavors to exacerbate harm to the victims?

There is no legislative immunity for criminal conduct.
 
 
+4 # fhunter 2013-01-25 17:27
Keep in mind: Pregnancy carries with it a risk of MORBIDITY and MORTALITY. Accordingly the rapist forces on her victim to risk her life. What does the Constitution say about this?
 
 
+4 # 1984 2013-01-25 19:50
Sick and beyond outrageous. Twisted. Incomprhensible . There is plenty of evidence of a rape without a child being born. Most rapes do not involve a pregnancy. Are they going to get thrown out because of lack of evidence?

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.
 
 
+2 # hoodwinkednomore 2013-01-25 22:11
Sick, bored, hateful freaks!
 
 
+2 # tomtom 2013-01-26 11:07
Evidence is still intact, with proof of pregnancy and the fetus. But, these laws are equal to the same mindset, in India, Morrocco, etc., where the rapist can avoid prosecution by, simply, marrying the victim. The woman is treated as if she has no voice/vote/righ ts in the matter. Most women in the world demand the freedom to make their own choice, with the encouragement of their peers.
 
 
+1 # motamanx 2013-01-26 12:01
What in hell are they thinking about?? This bit of misguided law is boilerplate Tea Party nonsense. Whoever came up with this chestnut deserves to be summarily impeached for lunacy.
 
 
0 # FLAK88 2013-01-26 12:44
I doubt that this bill would pass, but it clearly illustrates how hateful Republicans are toward Americans. The fact that the two legislators in this article are women only makes it worse. I can't think of any other developed nation where this sort of political behavior would even be tolerated. There's something wrong with people here, seriously.
 
 
+2 # SOF 2013-01-26 15:14
Outrageous, intolerable, lunacy! We write here like the Supreme Court -just exactly what does the law mean, allow, prohibit? This was already decide!. Women have a right to abortion. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion against their will! What is the State's responsibility to support these mandated, unwanted pregnancies and children? Woman can choose whether she accepts motherhood, or wants to terminate for whatever reasons. An unwilling mother is a host - as an unwanted fetus is a parasite. How awful to say about a "baby"- a fishy little fetus with gills. Awful again!. I am one of many who never experienced anything remotely resembling consciousness in my baby until the 7th or 8th months. If I had had to face an unwanted pregnancy, it would be between me, the potential future person, the father, and God. It would be no one else's business or karma. Even a happily married, ready, and willing woman like me, knows there is a chance she will be raising the child alone. Giving birth and parenting is a serious commitment - Spiritually, Logically, Legally. How dare anyone interfere with a woman's choice!
 
 
+2 # heraldmage 2013-01-26 16:05
These people will go to any length to impose their will, including protect rapist. Since if the victim doesn't report the crime they are free to have an abortion. This legislation gives rapist the freedom to rape.
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.
 
 
+2 # LAellie33 2013-01-27 13:16
THIS IS GETTING REALLY UNBEARABLY STUPID, RIDICULOUS, MORONIC AND HITLERESQUE. TRANSPLANT ALL FETUSES INTO A MAN AND LET HIM FU*KING CARRY THE FETUS TO TERM. FORCE EVERY MAN TO HAVE A VASECTOMY AT THE AGE OF 30 OR HE GOES TO PRISON. WE WANT TO CUT DOWN ON ABORTION RIGHT? NO SPERM = NO ABORTION! SCREW THE MAN!!! ENOUGH
E N O U G H!
 
 
+2 # bobaka 2013-01-27 15:18
So, who owns you? Were you born into slavery without knowing it? How do elites become elites?Slavery, ignorance, disease, violence,povert y--all forms of rape. For adult intelligence to form, the infant and child must be raised without systematic trauma that prevents the child from seeking what it needs and learning how to know.Cripple the father who cripples the mother who cripples the child and the elites go to the bank. Appeals to reason are like appeals to the fairy godmother of trained mindfuck. Women hate fundamentalist men and can not fight them off. The fundamentalist rapes on a daily basis. A woman hates a man who has sex with her without bringing her to orgasm. It is universal for men to force one way sex on women. Most men are afraid of vaginas and its wetness and its smells.The fundamentalist prefers anal sex.Is the fundamentalist actually a homosexual in disguise?
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.
 
 
0 # hoodwinkednomore 2013-01-27 17:17
Awomen, bobaka!
 
 
0 # tm7devils 2013-01-30 21:13
Tampering with evidence...? Wouldn't that be like saying that DNA evidence is inadmissable since taking it from the body of a suspect would be "tampering with the evidence? The aborted fetus would have the DNA of both the victim and the rapist. Carrying a baby to term is neither proof or non-proof of rape.
The idiot who thought this chicanery up doesn't have the reasoning power of a nematode nor the moral standards of one!
 

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.

RSNRSN