The entire wording of this proposed bill is a mess. I sort of understand what they were aiming for, but we know the zealots will go after rape/incest victims.
Republicans for Rape
How about if we refer to the other side as Democrats for killing Babies?
On Wednesday Rep. Cathrynn Brown, R-Carlsbad, introduced House Bill 206, which she said was intended to make it a crime for a rapist to force his pregnant victim to have an abortion.
I fail to see the problem here. Every pro-abortion person I've ever argued with has said that they support a woman's right to choose. What in this intended law says anything but?
Or is it the contention of the fervent pro-abortion crowd that you all support abortion even when it's NOT the choice of the woman?
Edit: Who is really going to stand up say that they defend the right of a rapist to force his victim to have an abortion?
The question that needs to be asked here is why does this law need to be passed in the first place? Are women really being forced to have abortions by their rapists?
On Wednesday Rep. Cathrynn Brown, R-Carlsbad, introduced House Bill 206, which she said was intended to make it a crime for a rapist to force his pregnant victim to have an abortion.
I fail to see the problem here. Every pro-abortion person I've ever argued with has said that they support a woman's right to choose. What in this intended law says anything but?
Or is it the contention of the fervent pro-abortion crowd that you all support abortion even when it's NOT the choice of the woman?
Edit: Who is really going to stand up say that they defend the right of a rapist to force his victim to have an abortion?
The question that needs to be asked here is why does this law need to be passed in the first place? Are women really being forced to have abortions by their rapists?
You are quoting what the politican said instead of what the bill siad. That's your first mistake right there. Politicians, it turns out, have a nasty habit of lying.
Here is the section of the bill quoted in the story:
"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."
Clearly the bill itself indicates that it was indeed restrictive on a woman's "right to choose."
On Wednesday Rep. Cathrynn Brown, R-Carlsbad, introduced House Bill 206, which she said was intended to make it a crime for a rapist to force his pregnant victim to have an abortion.
I fail to see the problem here. Every pro-abortion person I've ever argued with has said that they support a woman's right to choose. What in this intended law says anything but?
Or is it the contention of the fervent pro-abortion crowd that you all support abortion even when it's NOT the choice of the woman?
Edit: Who is really going to stand up say that they defend the right of a rapist to force his victim to have an abortion?
The question that needs to be asked here is why does this law need to be passed in the first place? Are women really being forced to have abortions by their rapists?
The intention may have been good, but the way it was written does not necessarily show the intention.
What it says is that a rape or incest victim cannot have an abortion, because that would be tampering with evidence. A dr cannot perform one on a rape or incest victim for the same reason.
Who the hell ever thought that a fetus is evidence, is out of their mind, btw.
On Wednesday Rep. Cathrynn Brown, R-Carlsbad, introduced House Bill 206, which she said was intended to make it a crime for a rapist to force his pregnant victim to have an abortion.
I fail to see the problem here. Every pro-abortion person I've ever argued with has said that they support a woman's right to choose. What in this intended law says anything but?
Or is it the contention of the fervent pro-abortion crowd that you all support abortion even when it's NOT the choice of the woman?
Edit: Who is really going to stand up say that they defend the right of a rapist to force his victim to have an abortion?
The question that needs to be asked here is why does this law need to be passed in the first place? Are women really being forced to have abortions by their rapists?
You are quoting what the politican said instead of what the bill siad. That's your first mistake right there. Politicians, it turns out, have a nasty habit of lying.
Here is the section of the bill quoted in the story:
"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."
Clearly the bill itself indicates that it was indeed restrictive on a woman's "right to choose."
It's a , not a law, and this can be easily resolved in committee. Instead there's some dirty b@stard using this (as a stretch) to make political hay at a Republican's expense.
The intention may have been good, but the way it was written does not necessarily show the intention.
Agreed, pretty much what I said.
What it says is that a rape or incest victim cannot have an abortion, because that would be tampering with evidence. A dr cannot perform one on a rape or incest victim for the same reason.
This is where it fell apart. Piss poor wording.
Who the hell ever thought that a fetus is evidence, is out of their mind, btw.
Agree. The only way a fetus could be used is to prove whether the man was the father, not a rapist.
1) Initimidate doctors, who may face criminal charges if they perform an abortion on a rape victim
2) Intimidate women, who may be forced to answer questions about how their pregnancy was conceived.
With the ultimate goal of deterring abortions.
This bill is not being introduced to address some problem with lack of babies as "evidence" in rape cases. Its a bill by admitted and known anti-abortionists to limit abortion. Period.
It's a , not a law, and this can be easily resolved in committee. Instead there's some dirty b@stard using this (as a stretch) to make political hay at a Republican's expense.
It would appear that the Democrat Speaker of the House would agree:
Speaker of House defends state rep who introduced rape and incest bill
The Democratic Speaker of the House came to the defense of Republican state Rep. Cathrynn Brown of Eddy County after liberal groups, bloggers and websites attacked her for a bill concerning rape that Rep. Brown says has been badly misconstrued.
"If she says it wasn�t her intention (to ignite a controversy), I will take her at her word," Speaker W. Ken Martinez (D-Grant) said Thursday. "She�s a good person."
Where have I heard this before? Oh, right! Morocco! They just abolished the same thing!
How about if we refer to the other side as Democrats for killing Babies?
Sterotypes are fun, aren't they BF.
I fail to see the problem here. Every pro-abortion person I've ever argued with has said that they support a woman's right to choose. What in this intended law says anything but?
Or is it the contention of the fervent pro-abortion crowd that you all support abortion even when it's NOT the choice of the woman?
Edit: Who is really going to stand up say that they defend the right of a rapist to force his victim to have an abortion?
The question that needs to be asked here is why does this law need to be passed in the first place? Are women really being forced to have abortions by their rapists?
I fail to see the problem here. Every pro-abortion person I've ever argued with has said that they support a woman's right to choose. What in this intended law says anything but?
Or is it the contention of the fervent pro-abortion crowd that you all support abortion even when it's NOT the choice of the woman?
Edit: Who is really going to stand up say that they defend the right of a rapist to force his victim to have an abortion?
The question that needs to be asked here is why does this law need to be passed in the first place? Are women really being forced to have abortions by their rapists?
You are quoting what the politican said instead of what the bill siad. That's your first mistake right there. Politicians, it turns out, have a nasty habit of lying.
Here is the section of the bill quoted in the story:
Clearly the bill itself indicates that it was indeed restrictive on a woman's "right to choose."
I fail to see the problem here. Every pro-abortion person I've ever argued with has said that they support a woman's right to choose. What in this intended law says anything but?
Or is it the contention of the fervent pro-abortion crowd that you all support abortion even when it's NOT the choice of the woman?
Edit: Who is really going to stand up say that they defend the right of a rapist to force his victim to have an abortion?
The question that needs to be asked here is why does this law need to be passed in the first place? Are women really being forced to have abortions by their rapists?
The intention may have been good, but the way it was written does not necessarily show the intention.
What it says is that a rape or incest victim cannot have an abortion, because that would be tampering with evidence. A dr cannot perform one on a rape or incest victim for the same reason.
Who the hell ever thought that a fetus is evidence, is out of their mind, btw.
I fail to see the problem here. Every pro-abortion person I've ever argued with has said that they support a woman's right to choose. What in this intended law says anything but?
Or is it the contention of the fervent pro-abortion crowd that you all support abortion even when it's NOT the choice of the woman?
Edit: Who is really going to stand up say that they defend the right of a rapist to force his victim to have an abortion?
The question that needs to be asked here is why does this law need to be passed in the first place? Are women really being forced to have abortions by their rapists?
You are quoting what the politican said instead of what the bill siad. That's your first mistake right there. Politicians, it turns out, have a nasty habit of lying.
Here is the section of the bill quoted in the story:
Clearly the bill itself indicates that it was indeed restrictive on a woman's "right to choose."
It's a , not a law, and this can be easily resolved in committee. Instead there's some dirty b@stard using this (as a stretch) to make political hay at a Republican's expense.
The intention may have been good, but the way it was written does not necessarily show the intention.
Agreed, pretty much what I said.
This is where it fell apart. Piss poor wording.
Agree. The only way a fetus could be used is to prove whether the man was the father, not a rapist.
Who the hell ever thought that a fetus is evidence, is out of their mind, btw.
Because it's utterly unheard of to use genetic evidence to prosecute a crime, right?
The purpose of this bill is to:
1) Initimidate doctors, who may face criminal charges if they perform an abortion on a rape victim
2) Intimidate women, who may be forced to answer questions about how their pregnancy was conceived.
With the ultimate goal of deterring abortions.
This bill is not being introduced to address some problem with lack of babies as "evidence" in rape cases. Its a bill by admitted and known anti-abortionists to limit abortion. Period.
It's a , not a law, and this can be easily resolved in committee. Instead there's some dirty b@stard using this (as a stretch) to make political hay at a Republican's expense.
It would appear that the Democrat Speaker of the House would agree:
Speaker of House defends state rep who introduced rape and incest bill
"If she says it wasn�t her intention (to ignite a controversy), I will take her at her word," Speaker W. Ken Martinez (D-Grant) said Thursday. "She�s a good person."