Raw Story: New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims With Jail Time

[HeluCopter29]

Apparently if I rape a chick and get her pregnant, I have a right to control if she get's an abortion or not. So now we'll just call it "tampering with evidence."

Bill was proposed by a woman too.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/25/new-republican-idea-punishing-rape-victims-with-jail-time/

If you’re looking for evidence that the differences between men and women are greatly exaggerated, the fact that women are equally capable as men of mind-blowing misogyny should erase all doubt. New Mexico state Rep. Cathrynn Brown proved that this week by introducing a bill aimed at throwing rape victims in jail if they refuse to honor their rapist’s right to control their body by carrying his child. This sort of insult to rapists will not stand, so Brown, standing up bravely for rapists who want the suffering they’ve inflicted to carry on and on for their victims, has proposed banning abortion for rape victims on the phony grounds that it’s “tampering with evidence”.

[redskinss]

sounds like an episode of law and order svu

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called on the Republican Party to "stop being the stupid party."

[Corcaigh]

Thee has to be a fetus, otherwise, no rape?

[Barney B]

I guess it makes a kind of sense, if you strongly believe that the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother in all cases - you're saving innocent lives by any means necessary, goddammit!

Apparently, though, she doesn't believe it so strongly that she's willing to gamble her political career on this bill - she's already been cowed by the backlash, and has resorted to making **** up:

Cathrynn Brown wants to abort mission

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/cathrynn_brown_wants_to_abort_mission/

But Brown’s clever ruse to redefine a woman’s constitutional right as criminal tampering didn’t go over very well, and as the bill made national headlines Thursday, Brown not so coincidentally removed her contact information from her legislature page. But her personal Web page, which greets visitors with a photo from the governor’s prayer breakfast, tells a tale of somebody who’s been trying to tweak the narrative. There’s a record of two now-deleted posts entered on Thursday evening, followed by a statement from Brown that reads, “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.”

Man, that was fast. I guess a quick in and out is to be expected of someone who believes that if a woman has been raped once, she deserves to be raped twice.

[bird_1972]

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called on the Republican Party to "stop being the stupid party."

Looks like it's not working.

I'm hoping Republicans as we know them go the way of the Do-Do bird. Need to have an adult alternative to the Democratic party, not some circus side show.

[twa]

from what I have read it was intended to prosecute the rapists

no good deed ....carry on

[Barney B]

from what I have read it was intended to prosecute the rapists

no good deed ....carry on

Cause you can get lots of evidence from a baby that you can't get from an aborted fetus.

Like, after it's born, you can ask it who the father is.

[Larry]

from what I have read it was intended to prosecute the rapists

no good deed ....carry on

From what you have read, that was the false claim they were making, for the latest entry in the "look, everybody, I can be even more dingbat anti-abortion than all he other Republicans" competition.

[twa]

Cause you can get lots of evidence from a baby that you can't get from an aborted fetus.

Like, after it's born, you can ask it who the father is.

you don't think they save the evidence from abortions do you ?

I'm curious how you believe they would know it is a pregnancy from rape?

a minor obviously would be statutory rape,but if from incest there is no evidence collected if the father compels a abortion.

perhaps requiring samples from abortions on minors would be a better course

[Larry]

you don't think they save the evidence from abortions do you ?

I'm curious how you believe they would know it is a pregnancy from rape?

a minor obviously would be statutory rape,but if from incest there is no evidence collected if the father compels a abortion.

perhaps requiring samples from abortions on minors would be a better course

Ah, we've gone from discussing a law forbidding the woman from aborting, to discussing why it would be wrong for the man to compel one.

[Barney B]

you don't think they save the evidence from abortions do you ?

They don't? Well, they should, shouldn't they? Maybe, if your bill is sincerely "intended to prosecute the rapists", it should address this issue?

But this bill wasn't intended for that. It's an effort to force women to carry a fetus to full term, even if they've been raped. Is it too much to ask that If someone thinks that's a good idea, they should just say so?

I'm curious how you believe they would know it is a pregnancy from rape?

If a rape is alleged, then you can collect the evidence, would that work?

Do you really want to force a woman to carry a rapist's baby?

[twa]

Ah, we've gone from discussing a law forbidding the woman from aborting, to discussing why it would be wrong for the man to compel one.

have you read the submitted bill? (rhetorical question since you obviously have not)

the wording was poor,but the intent was not at the pregnant

---------- Post added January-27th-2013 at 11:31 AM ----------

If a rape is alleged, then you can collect the evidence, would that work?

?

in the case of a woman or minor under anothers control....obviously not

and yes it happens

No I would not force a woman to carry a rapists child,despite seeing it as her own as well

[The 12th Commandment]

the wording was poor...

Here's another example of "purposeful ambiguity" in a political document. Ironic that it challenges the Brits on a "paltry grievance" that mirrors a current favorite of the right wing. :pfft:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_style.html

Second, as Thomas Hutchinson complained, the charges were "most wickedly presented to cast reproach upon the King." Consider, for example, grievance 10: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." The language is Biblical and conjures up Old Testament images of "swarms" of flies and locusts covering the face of the earth, "so that the land was darkened," and devouring all they found until "there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field" (Exodus 10:14-15). It also recalls the denunciation, in Psalms 53:4, of "the workers of iniquity . . . who eat up my people as they eat bread," and the prophecy of Deuteronomy 28:51 that an enemy nation "shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee." For some readers the religious connotations may have been enhanced by "substance," which was used in theological discourse to signify "the Essence or Substance of the Godhead" and to describe the Holy Eucharist, in which Christ had "coupled the substance of his flesh and the substance of bread together, so we should receive both."(22)

From the revolutionaries' view, however, the primary advantage of the wording of charge 10 was probably its purposeful ambiguity. The "multitude of New Offices" referred to the customs posts that had been created in the 1760s to control colonial smuggling. The "swarms of Officers" that were purportedly eating out the substance of the colonies' three million people numbered about fifty in the entire continent. But Congress could hardly assail George III as a tyrant for appointing a few dozen men to enforce the laws against smuggling, so it clothed the charge in vague, evocative imagery that gave significance and emotional resonance to what otherwise might have seemed a rather paltry grievance.(23)

[Barney B]

in the case of a woman or minor under anothers control....obviously not

So maybe what's needed is a bill to address this problem? 'Cause if Cathrynn Brown's bill was really intended as anything more than political grandstanding, then surely she could write something a little more reasonable, and stand a realistic chance of actually helping to prosecute the rapists.

No I would not force a woman to carry a rapists child,despite seeing it as her own as well

No, wait.

:2drunks:

[twa]

So maybe what's needed is a bill to address this problem? 'Cause if Cathrynn Brown's bill was really intended as anything more than political grandstanding, then surely she could write something a little more reasonable, and stand a realistic chance of actually helping to prosecute the rapists.

you mean like this?

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

with a simple exclusion for the mother?

gee ...she did that

I would certainly agree the exclusion should have been thought of before she submitted it, but bills are regularly cleaned up in the process

[Barney B]

you mean like this?

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

with a simple exclusion for the mother?

gee ...she did that

I would certainly agree the exclusion should have been thought of before she submitted it, but bills are regularly cleaned up in the process

Nope, not like that.

[twa]

Nope, not like that.

Like what then?

to prosecute it would require demonstrating a rape occurred(or incest) and intent to destroy evidence of it....and the mother is excluded

[Larry]

have you read the submitted bill? (rhetorical question since you obviously have not)

the wording was poor,but the intent was not at the pregnant

Really?

Right now, who has the authority to order an abortion?

(I'll give you a hint. It's 1) The mother, 2) Nobody else.)

So please, explain to us in detail how you get from that current status to "we need to pass a law to make it illegal for rapists to force women to get abortions".

I'd love to see this dance.

Or, better yet, since you want to pull the "the submitted bill" card, how about you furnish us with the part that refers to rapists compelling his victim to abort?

---------- Post added January-27th-2013 at 02:48 PM ----------

you mean like this?

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

with a simple exclusion for the mother?

gee ...she did that

I would certainly agree the exclusion should have been thought of before she submitted it, but bills are regularly cleaned up in the process

Or how about leaving out the words "procuring or facilitating an abortion"?

You know, punishing the force or coercion, instead of the abortion?

Or, better yet, how about simply leaving the existing laws against destruction of evidence, on the books?

Where've I heard that phrase "just enforce the existing laws"? :halo:

[twa]

Larry , are you unaware of girls /women being forced to do things(including abortions) ??

I realize it is not common,but then murder or mass shootings are not either......just trivial things

why don't you at least acknowledge you missed the compel or coerce before we move on

[Larry]

Larry , are you unaware of girls /women being forced to do things(including abortions) ??

I realize it is not common,but then murder or mass shootings are not either......just trivial things

why don't you at least acknowledge you missed the compel or coerce before we move on

Is compelling or coercing someone into performing an illegal act, already illegal?

[twa]

Is compelling or coercing someone into performing an illegal act, already illegal?

abortion is not illegal

[Larry]

abortion is not illegal

Ah, so you do recognize that the law was written for the purpose of prohibiting something that wasn't illegal, before the law. The abortion.

Coercion is already illegal.

Destroying evidence is already illegal.

Heck, talking about or planning destroying evidence is illegal. (Conspiracy.)

So, I kinda have to conclude that the purpose of the law was to prohibit the only thing the law mentions, that isn't already illegal.

[twa]

About what I would expect as a reply

how is it making abortion illegal with a exclusion for the mother?...you know, the person you already said must authorize it.

of course your scenario also leaves out the ever increasing abortificants(which they can be forced or tricked into consuming) and ignores the evidence being destroyed removes the evidence of that itself.

what % of women having abortions feel coerced or forced do you think?......does the % naturally climb in cases of incest and in abusive relationships?

Of course abusing women is also already illegal ,as is rape........or shooting innocents

convicting someone of rape w/o evidence is rather difficult,how much more so would it be in the case of forced abortions?

Would the law empower a victim or punish them in your mind?......honestly

as a sidenote on abortion and the children of rapists,might I recommend reading Victims and Victors [Acorn Books, 2000]

[Larry]

About what I would expect as a reply

Long as you've decided to move from ignoring the things you want to hide from, and claiming that other people aren't responding: \

You feel like answering the question I already asked? you know:

Is compelling or coercing someone into performing an illegal act, already illegal?