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."Now, since Huffpo broke the story, it's been picked up by other news groups, and the public outcry against this brain-meltingly obvious idiocy has made Representative Brown very sad. She's now trying to explain to everybody how she was being "misrepresented."
Rep. Cathrynn Brown, a Republican from Carlsbad, said Thursday she will revise the bill, which she said was intended to target perpetrators of rape or incest who try to cover their tracks by forcing their victims to have abortions... Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them. Brown said she will clarify the language to remove any ambiguity.Yeah, but while that may be the way she tried to sell it (and I'll give a tip of my hat to Ted for pointing it out to me)... well, in her defense, she's an idiot. Just how often, exactly, does a rapist drag a woman to a doctor to abort his rape-baby? Because, yeah, the way she was selling this to her friends and supporters probably sounded just like that. The version on her own website has been undergoing daily changes since it went up, but has been warm and friendly to the poor beleaguered victim since day one. But the one that was introduced to the state legislature had some... well, let's just call them "inconsistencies" from the story Ms Brown has been trying to sell. See, here's how it was presented:
It then goes on to explain, if you're curious, what crimes will be added (or applied) to everybody involved, with no question about who it is (the rapist, the victim, or the doctor). And that's it. Short, sweet and stupid. So, if you get raped, and then you get an abortion, you go to jail. It's a simple equation. "Ah," but the calm, rational side of you explains, "it's right there in the bill! You have to have 'the intent to prevent the apprehension' of the rapist! Obviously, a victim isn't going to do that, right?" Well, aside from the fact that "calm" and "rational" can rarely be applied to the anti-abortion lobby, let's consider for a minute. There's a term that needs to be applied here: "Thought crime." It's illegal to get an abortion that might tamper with evidence. Unless you can prove that you hadn't intended to tamper with evidence. You have to prove what you'd been thinking about. "But... but... but..." your calm, rational side sputters, not yet willing to give up. "That isn't true! The state has to prove that you were planning to tamper with evidence!" No, afraid not. The state has to prove that you did tamper with evidence, and then show that you might have still harbored feelings for the rapist. (Not hard to do, if it's, say, your dad, or some guy you haven't actively attacked with a knife...) After all, you got the abortion. They can prove that happened. A woman still gets blamed for getting raped if she dresses "too provocatively" or goes to the wrong part of town. We tell women how to avoid getting raped; we don't tell men "don't rape." We just assume that the natural state of man is "rapist." Since he's going to try to have sex regardless of any other factors, it's her job to avoid getting in that position. If you then factor in the concept of "Stockholm Syndrome," please try to explain where this won't go wrong. Women already get accused of fabricating rape charges because they had sex, but then had "second thoughts" the next day. Our society has some seriously messed-up priorities when it comes to rape. _____________ Update (1/28/2013): So, I just corrected the formatting in the text of the bill. I tried to show it the way it was presented on the legislative website (with paragraph B underlined and the rest of it) and just managed to make it invisible. So now it's just shown as text, because some people shouldn't be allowed to use HTML.AN ACT
RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING PROCURING OF AN ABORTION AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO: SECTION 1. Section 30-22-5 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1963, Chapter 303, Section 22-5, as amended) is amended to read: "30-22-5. TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE.-- 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. C. Whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished as follows:
Offensive on so many levels, this "tampering with evidence" bill is the quintessence of VICTIM BLAME which presents crime victims with a lose-lose choice: If you report the crime, you will be unable to choose abortion without risking prosecution; the only way to have an abortion is NOT to report the crime. Hypothetically, a child born under such circumstance is not even considered a legal person, merely "evidence."
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of a case in Morocco where a raped woman was forced to marry her rapist under ultra-orthodox Islamic law. She chose suicide.
How barbaric!
"A woman still gets blamed for getting raped if she dresses "too provocatively" or goes to the wrong part of town. We tell women how to avoid getting raped; we don't tell men "don't rape."
ReplyDeletePerhaps she will suffer such accusations from defense lawyers and even judges. It definitely happens, but last I heard rape was still a felony, which is the law's way of saying "don't rape" and I don't think we can rightly say it's the rule -- but still you know, the wrong part of town is dangerous and that's why they call it the wrong part of town and that's why I would still caution women to take some thought before strolling down Avenue D in Ft Pierce in inebriated condition at 2 AM and there's no more malice or contempt or misogyny behind it that advising them not to drive drunk or go swimming when there's a riptide. Freedom is not free of responsibility or consequences for either gender and I think we should be able to advise people to be smart without being accused of hating women as much as the straw man beckons.
And Allah be thanked we don't live in Morocco still under the influence of retrograde religion - for the moment. The reason we hear so much mierda about Sharia is that they're afraid it will replace Bible law which ain't so friendly to women either.
Women do get accused of fabrication. Sometimes it's true and that's why we have courts. I know of a very famous case in Illinois where the woman later did admit to it, but the alleged Rapist spent decades behind bars none the less, because crooked and greedy prosecutors stonewalled her attempts to overturn the conviction. I think what we have is rampant miscarriages of justice across the board and people go to jail unjustly all the time while the guilty sometimes go free.
There are many reasons for it, including badly written and misguided laws rammed through with emotional or moral arguments that are not part of or caused by the misogynist religious right and by making it a simple, one-issue problem we distort it.
I would much rather assign blame for such lingering inequities to that sad group who distrust and fear women, want to subjugate and restrict and exploit women rather than to our "society" because we are and women are part of that society and in increasing measure.
"A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico"
ReplyDeleteBy the way, is that what you call a pleonasm? A statement with s needless redundancy? I'm disappointed again -- I thought New Mexico was better than Arizona. And never mind what I said above, those states are not part of our culture, present company excluded of course.
Hey, now, Cap! New Mexico may not have the most effective legislature in the country, but at least they swing reliably blue - both houses are majority-Democrat, it's just the governor's office that's Republican.
ReplyDeleteWe're like the little buffer of sanity between Arizona and Texas. We may be broke, and mostly worthless desert, but at least we've got our pride.
I starting tracking this story a week ago when it was first publicized, and what struck me about it was this: An attempt to undercut any/all arguments justifying abortion in the event of rape or incest. Anti-abortion extremists really don't give a damn about rape, incest, victim blame, women's rights, fetuses, justice, or common decency. All they want is to abolish abortion by whatever irrational and inhumane means possible, period. All other considerations are merely a side show.
ReplyDeleteSpeaker Boehner's stated legislative goal for 2013: Abolish all forms of abortion (despite the fact that 70% of the American people now support Roe v. Wade).
Octo wrote:
ReplyDelete"All they want is to abolish abortion by whatever irrational and inhumane means possible, period. All other considerations are merely a side show. "
Bingo. and you can add democracy to the list of things they don't give a damn about. I can't separate that fanatical concern for embryo rights from the need to control sex which drives the need to control women which derives from religion. That's why they hate humanism as well as democracy and that's why I hate them.