You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:20:28 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid  (Read 13333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #200 on: January 13, 2013, 01:42:32 PM »
What exactly is a GOP?  I tried googling but there's too many options.

Offline Jarick

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #201 on: January 13, 2013, 01:44:13 PM »
"GOP" is short for Grand Old Party, one of the nicknames for the Republican party in the United States.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #202 on: January 13, 2013, 01:47:39 PM »
"GOP" is short for Grand Old Party, one of the nicknames for the Republican party in the United States.

Ahhhh.  This entire thread makes a whole shed load more sense now.

Thanks Jarick

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #203 on: January 13, 2013, 01:52:06 PM »
*nods*  Paul Ryan, mentioned in the earlier post, was the running mate of Mitt Romney - thankfully, he's missed out on becoming the second most powerful person in the country.

Offline Sel Nar

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #204 on: January 13, 2013, 10:25:28 PM »
Is it any wonder that the vast majority of the world, Even Totalitarian dictatorships, point and laugh at the USA's electoral process, and candidates?

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #205 on: January 14, 2013, 10:11:17 AM »
A LOT of these bills are being pushed thru will little or no debate or review with the Tea party's insistence of 'no compromise' and the fact in places like the House of Representatives they are even refused to debate language at all about their bills.


Look at some of the issues that have come out of thing like some of the personhood laws. One state has put women in a constant state of pregnancy due to stupid language.

Offline Stattick

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #206 on: January 26, 2013, 12:05:22 AM »
Man, I just couldn't decide whether this post belonged in the abortion thread, or the rape thread. Maybe we need a rape abortion thread? (I think I sprained my soul, writing that.)

At any rate, this post goes where few would venture, that unhappy place where abortion and rape meet. And who do we have on the sidelines as cheerleaders? That's right, the Republicans.

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

Oh, those wacky Republicans. They make me feel like yelling, "Gilligan!" and smacking them on the head with my hat. Actually, the smiles and laughter are just a defense mechanism. Inside, my soul... I think it's dying. Seriously... fuck The Republican Party.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #207 on: January 26, 2013, 12:13:54 AM »
What blew my mind was that a WOMAN proposed this.. seriously.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #208 on: January 26, 2013, 12:18:16 AM »
Man, I just couldn't decide whether this post belonged in the abortion thread, or the rape thread. Maybe we need a rape abortion thread? (I think I sprained my soul, writing that.)

At any rate, this post goes where few would venture, that unhappy place where abortion and rape meet. And who do we have on the sidelines as cheerleaders? That's right, the Republicans.

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

Oh, those wacky Republicans. They make me feel like yelling, "Gilligan!" and smacking them on the head with my hat. Actually, the smiles and laughter are just a defense mechanism. Inside, my soul... I think it's dying. Seriously... fuck The Republican Party.

She proposed it yesterday, then today she issued a statement that she was rewording it - apparently she is concerned with the rapist pressuring the rapee into getting an abortion to hide the rape? Her statement said that the rapee would never actually be prosecuted... I dunno, is acquaintance rape that much of a problem in that state that legislators have to write stuff about it?

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #209 on: January 26, 2013, 12:27:11 AM »
I saw this, and my reaction was:  I'll get a D&C, and have the 'evidence' delivered to them by courier.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #210 on: January 26, 2013, 12:41:09 AM »
I have no words for that level of callous stupidity.

Offline Stattick

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #211 on: January 26, 2013, 12:35:47 PM »
She proposed it yesterday, then today she issued a statement that she was rewording it - apparently she is concerned with the rapist pressuring the rapee into getting an abortion to hide the rape? Her statement said that the rapee would never actually be prosecuted... I dunno, is acquaintance rape that much of a problem in that state that legislators have to write stuff about it?

Yeah, because it's totally alright to be forced to carry your inbred incest rape baby to term.

Also, I don't believe her. I think her original intent was to prosecute women who got abortions, but then some of the bigger and marginally more intelligent and/or compassionate people in her party (not that there's much of either left in the GOP), told her to shut the fuck up, and stop being the next Akin, and now they're trying to spin this into something less horrific. But, you know, I just don't have any ability left to give Republican lawmakers the benefit of the doubt. Since they still have the capacity to surprise me on how evil they can be, and I literally cannot remember the last time a Republican lawmaker said or did anything that surprised me in a positive fashion, I don't think I'm being uncharitable either. Hell, half the time a new news piece comes out about them, I can't tell whether it's a real piece, or something written by The Onion.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #212 on: January 26, 2013, 01:56:48 PM »
Yeah, because it's totally alright to be forced to carry your inbred incest rape baby to term.

This is kind of unnecessary - because I didn't say that. Thank you.

Online Lilias

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #213 on: January 26, 2013, 02:04:19 PM »
She proposed it yesterday, then today she issued a statement that she was rewording it - apparently she is concerned with the rapist pressuring the rapee into getting an abortion to hide the rape? Her statement said that the rapee would never actually be prosecuted... I dunno, is acquaintance rape that much of a problem in that state that legislators have to write stuff about it?

Unless a rape that resulted in pregnancy would carry a more severe sentence (highly unlikely), I fail to see what kind of evidence a pregnancy would be. It's not like accidents don't happen in consensual sex.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #214 on: January 26, 2013, 02:12:41 PM »
I can see the potential usefulness in obtaining a conviction (it would have half of the rapist's DNA), but it would only speak to identification, not whether it was actually rape.  If I have DNA in me that is from someone that I have no previous interaction with, he'll have a hard time saying 'Some Other Dude Did It.'

And as I said, it could be delivered by courier instead of an obstetrician.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #215 on: January 26, 2013, 02:15:29 PM »
I can see the potential usefulness in obtaining a conviction (it would have half of the rapist's DNA), but it would only speak to identification, not whether it was actually rape.  If I have DNA in me that is from someone that I have no previous interaction with, he'll have a hard time saying 'Some Other Dude Did It.'

And as I said, it could be delivered by courier instead of an obstetrician.

Pretty much.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #216 on: January 26, 2013, 04:51:16 PM »
Adequate and timely use of a rape kit should yield just as much evidence.  There was obviously some seminal fluid, thus DNA, left behind if a pregnancy was the result.  Still, identification of the father only points toward the act of sex not whether there was rape.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #217 on: January 26, 2013, 05:01:04 PM »
I can't speak to the adequacy of rape kit use, as that's not my area, but I can say that the use of a rape kit at all, let alone the timely use of one, is not always likely. Rapes are underreported - this is a well-known and well-studied fact. If a rape is reported, it can be well after the fact, or victims can report the rape but refuse to submit to a rape kit... Plus, the presence of seminal fluid in a rape kit does not always equal a conclusive DNA profile - even in the presence of sperm.

If a rape kit was not carried out then yes, a fetus can serve as evidence that sexual contact took place. In the presence of a rape kit, there is still not necessarily evidence of non-consent, so the fetus does fall into roughly the same category of a rape kit.

It just doesn't have to be alive to do it. >.<

Offline Major Major

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #218 on: February 02, 2013, 02:09:24 AM »
Some news on that Cathrynn Brown thing (and apropos of nothing, spelling the name like that makes me want to punch someone, for some reason): the bill was apparently re-introduced in the State House of Reps. Not a single line was changed in it from the previous attempt.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #219 on: February 02, 2013, 09:41:00 AM »
I actually read the text of the bill (it's not long) and did notice that in the wording of the bill, it does specify "with intent to destroy evidence of the crime".

I believe this is the 'old' version of the bill that I read, but if it was reintroduced without being changed, then that is still in there.

A lawyer will have to weigh in on this, but I think including that phrase in the bill under the definition of the crime will then require any prosecutor to prove that someone had an abortion with intent to destroy evidence. Furthermore, I doubt it would actually be prosecuted, because they would have an extremely difficult time getting a jury to convict. Maybe if they had a video tape of the woman saying "FUCK THIS BABY, MY DADDY AIN'T GOING TO JAIL" or something like that.

If worse comes to worst, they can always go hit up Jan "perpetual pregnancy" Brewer for ideas on rewording, but this wording to me does not actually seem all that sinister.

Offline Saria

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #220 on: February 02, 2013, 12:08:39 PM »
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that defence would fly.

If the woman was in the process of prosecuting a rape against someone, they could hardly argue they were unaware of the fact that the foetus is evidence of that rape. Especially if someone, like the police or either lawyer - defence or her own - were made aware of the pregnancy and said, "don't abort it, it's evidence", which is just the kind of thing some pro-life lawyer or cop might do. But even without that, you can't argue that any competent woman wouldn't have a reasonable awareness that aborting the foetus would be destroying evidence.

And if that's true, then the defence, "I didn't intend to destroy evidence; it was just an unavoidable side effect of having an abortion, which is not illegal" will not fly. Imagine if a chocolate bar was evidence of some crime, and someone - who knew the chocolate bar was evidence - ate it then argued, "I didn't intend to destroy evidence; it was just an unavoidable side effect of sating my hunger". It just wouldn't work. It wouldn't work with any crime. "Yes, I was aware that I am trespassing in this person's house, but it was not my intention to trespass; my intention was to retrieve my snowblower, which is legally mine, and the trespassing was just an unavoidable side effect." "I didn't intend to stab my boyfriend; my intention was to put the knife on the counter, but his torso was in the way and he refused to move, so the assault was an unavoidable side effect." (This is not the same as "I didn't intend to kill my boyfriend when I stabbed him", because death is not an unavoidable result of stabbing. Someone could argue they intended to hurt the boyfriend badly, but not kill him. But they can't argue they didn't intend to hurt him unless it can be shown they weren't competent enough to be aware that stabbing would hurt.)

So long as the woman was aware that having the abortion would destroy evidence, and did it anyway, then that's intentional destruction of evidence. It doesn't need to be the primary intention of the action, but if the destruction of evidence wasn't accidental, then it was intentional. And there's no reasonable way a competent woman can argue she didn't know the foetus was evidence of the rape if she knew the rapist was the father. Just about the only defence would be to say that she didn't think the rapist was the father, if that can fly, but if she's ever gone on the record saying he was, then that option would be lost, too.

At any rate, the intent of the bill has to be sinister, because it makes no sense otherwise. If the pregnancy is going to be evidence of the rape, then aborting it as soon as possible is actually the best way to get the evidence. The longer you wait, the greater the error bars on the estimate of the time of conception. If you abort the foetus, then you can send bits of it to both the defence and prosecution to analyze independently, as much as they want for as long as they want. And, if the abortion is done with proper oversight, you maintain what they call the "chain of evidence", meaning the evidence is never once unaccounted for and always under official protection right from the collection point (the womb) to the courtroom, to prevent any contamination - whereas if you try to use the child that has been born, then unless that child is under police lockdown 24/7 from the moment it pops out, there's no way to know if any skullduggery has gone on (like, for example, switching children).

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #221 on: February 02, 2013, 12:35:11 PM »
Thing is.. it DOESN'T destroy the evidence. The fetus will have the same DNA aborted or not.

This isn't about evidence protection or prosecuting rapists.. it's about curtailing abortion from any and all angles. EVERY conceivable angle. We have laws in one state that theoretically maintains that women are pregnant from onset of her monthly cycle thru to menopause. This is simply another insane law that is being pushed through without debate and discussion or even argument over rationality.


Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #222 on: February 02, 2013, 01:53:35 PM »
Indeed. Aborting does not actually destroy evidence, and there are a multitude of other reasons to abort other than with the intent to destroy evidence.

It criminalizes the intent rather than the act - something that our justice system looks at all the time, for example in degrees of murder. So it's not new and radical and criminalizing the act of abortion itself.

So this:

And if that's true, then the defence, "I didn't intend to destroy evidence; it was just an unavoidable side effect of having an abortion, which is not illegal" will not fly.

... is factually incorrect and invalidated.

Having an abortion alone does not destroy evidence - and it is in fact more prone to preserve the evidence (the fetus) than, for instance, a miscarriage.

At any rate, the intent of the bill has to be sinister, because it makes no sense otherwise. If the pregnancy is going to be evidence of the rape, then aborting it as soon as possible is actually the best way to get the evidence. The longer you wait, the greater the error bars on the estimate of the time of conception. If you abort the foetus, then you can send bits of it to both the defence and prosecution to analyze independently, as much as they want for as long as they want. And, if the abortion is done with proper oversight, you maintain what they call the "chain of evidence", meaning the evidence is never once unaccounted for and always under official protection right from the collection point (the womb) to the courtroom, to prevent any contamination - whereas if you try to use the child that has been born, then unless that child is under police lockdown 24/7 from the moment it pops out, there's no way to know if any skullduggery has gone on (like, for example, switching children).

Aside from the fact that people do stupid stuff all the time without actually having sinister intents... >.>

It's a two-page bill that criminalizes the coercion of a victim of rape to have an abortion. If you would like to label that as sinister, that's perfectly fine, because whether this is sinister or not is a matter of opinion. And my opinion is that, while the lady chose a really stupid method, it is not sinister. Additionally, I wish that pro-choice activists would stop focusing on minor things like this, because it expends effort that could be directed at people like Richard "Gift from God" Mourdock.

Offline Saria

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #223 on: February 02, 2013, 07:19:37 PM »
Aborting does not actually destroy evidence, and there are a multitude of other reasons to abort other than with the intent to destroy evidence.
Well, technically, aborting can destroy evidence. The assumption in most of the discussion so far is that the woman getting the abortion is choosing to do so of her own free will, in which case sure, she could keep the foetus or arrange for investigators to get it somehow.

But imagine a case where a daughter has been molested by her father. The daughter gets pregnant, and the father - to avoid the crime being detected, and especially to avoid having it pinned on him - forces her to get an abortion. With his parental consent, it's a done deal. The foetus is gone, and only a court order could uncover evidence that the abortion - and thus the pregnancy - ever happened at all. And of course, at that point the father could claim that someone else raped the daughter. It would be a pretty effective way to avoid prosecution, especially if the daughter is not cooperating with the investigation and doesn't name the abortion clinic - but even if she wants to help with the investigation, it's already suffered a hell of a setback.

Of course, this new law does absolutely nothing to help in this regard. It does nothing to stop this kind of thing from happening. And if it does happen, this is already destruction of evidence under existing law. The new law adds nothing.

It criminalizes the intent rather than the act - something that our justice system looks at all the time, for example in degrees of murder. So it's not new and radical and criminalizing the act of abortion itself.
No law criminalizes intent; we don't make laws for thought crimes. This law, like all laws, criminalizes an intentional action. In this case, the action it criminalizes is abortion.

Even in the cases of murder, the only reason intent gets discussed is to figure out which type of homicide happened: premeditated, crime-of-passion, intended-to-kill-someone (but not necessarily the person who actually got killed), not-intended-to-kill (but a competent and reasonable person should have known it would have), self-defence, etc. (Which roughly map to first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, justifiable homicide, etc.) It's not the intention being prosecuted, the action is being prosecuted - the intention is only used to figure out precisely what the action was, whether it was "premeditated homicide", or "homicide in self-defence" or whatever else.

(To further hammer the point home that this law does criminalize the intent, but rather the act of abortion, consider what would happen if a person intended to abort a rape baby to destroy evidence, but got arrested for something else on their way to the clinic, then admitted their intention in jail. They couldn't be prosecuted for intending to abort the rape baby/destroy the evidence. They could only be prosecuted if they actually did it.)

This case is particularly transparent. It can't be argued that this isn't a law to make abortion illegal - at least in limited cases - because there are already laws against destroying evidence. If you've read the bill, you can see that all it does is insert this abortion thing right into the existing legal text about tampering with evidence. The existing text is already good enough to cover the new stuff being added, if the new stuff is legitimately what it is purported to be - if investigators or the court decide the foetus is evidence and that aborting it is "destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating" that evidence, then the existing law covers it.

This new bill - and its revised version - serves no other purpose other than specifically making abortion illegal, at least in those specific circumstances. It just does so in an underhanded way by reframing the act. Like most actions, this particular action can be described in multiple, equally valid ways: for example, it could be called "aborting a rape baby" or it could be called "tampering with evidence of a rape". The bill sneakily uses the latter framing to hide that it's just about the abortion. And it is just about the abortion, because the existing text already covers the "tampering with evidence of a rape" angle, so the new text must just be about the abortion angle. It's the only reasonable conclusion.

Aside from the fact that people do stupid stuff all the time without actually having sinister intents... >.>
And also aside from the fact that people do sinister things, and try to cover them up by acting stupid, all the time? :-)

("Gee, officer, I didn't know this was illegal! ~bats eyelashes~")

It's a two-page bill that criminalizes the coercion of a victim of rape to have an abortion. If you would like to label that as sinister, that's perfectly fine, because whether this is sinister or not is a matter of opinion. And my opinion is that, while the lady chose a really stupid method, it is not sinister.
I think you're being far too naive about this particular lawmaker's intention. (I'd also point out that you were the one who introduced the loaded word "sinister". If it were up to me, I would just call it dishonest and an underhanded attempt to criminalize legal abortion. Those aren't matters of opinion, they are matters of fact. If she really is more interested in criminalizing abortion than in protecting "evidence", despite claiming otherwise, it may be a matter of opinion whether that is "sinister" or "heroically clever"... but it would not be a matter of opinion that it is dishonest and underhanded.)

Lawmakers may be stupid - and often are - but there are patterns to their stupidity. They often pass hastily written and stupid bills in the face of public pressure, or in the wake of major events or overwhelming numbers. That's not the case here. Has there been any case on recent record where an abortion has destroyed evidence, and prevented prosecution? Possibly, but is it really that widespread a problem that a specific law is needed to cover it, especially when it's already covered by existing law? In lieu of that... what prompted this bill? It didn't just pop out of thin air; something motivated Cathrynn Brown to go through the process of writing the bill, and risking her political career putting it up for debate... more than once. So what made her do it? There are hundreds of other issues she could have focused her attention on, and many other bills - stupid or otherwise - she could have written. Why this one?

It's pretty obvious. It's an underhanded attempt to undermine abortion rights. There is no other reasonable conclusion. Cathrynn Brown is a lawyer for goodness sake. And, unsurprisingly, she's an avid and active anti-abortion advocate (and a climate change denier to boot, incidentally). We can't have an effective democracy if we assume our lawmakers have the IQ of vegetables, or if we blindly take seriously their claims, when they've been caught doing something disgusting, that their intentions were pure... especially when the disgusting thing they did is perfectly in line with everything else they've said and done in their political careers, and their stated ideologies, that they even campaigned on.

I don't doubt at all that she fumbled this bill - that's why she was so quick to take it back... but then she revised it and resubmitted it. (The new text makes it clear the rape victim won't be prosecuted - only anyone who forces her or facilitates the abortion knowing the circumstances. But still, every other criticism expressed so far stands.) I do really believe that she didn't intend to prosecute rape victims for getting abortions, rather than anyone who makes them get an abortion. I do really believe that was an accident. But I also fully believe that she does intend to make abortion illegal in any situations she can, and no, that's not my opinion: that's her stated policy as an anti-abortion activist. I hope no one was surprised that she's an anti-abortion activist, and, in fact, on the board of an anti-abortion group. Would anybody be surprised to learn that she has never shown any interest in police procedural matters before this (her main field of interest seems to be agricultural and water issues)?

To put it bluntly, one of two things is true. Either Cathrynn Brown really is so dumb that she thought this was a good idea for the reasons stated, and so out of touch with reality that she thought this issue was important or widespread enough to write a bill about, in which case, she should be asked to resign immediately for her obvious incompetence. Or she's being dishonest about her intentions with this bill. Given that she has been a lawyer for decades, is obviously quite well educated, that there has been absolutely no major case or widespread push for a law like this, that she has never shown any other interest in court or police procedures, and that she has for many years been an active and vocal anti-abortion advocate... which option, as an honest, thinking adult, do you think is true? We don't do ourselves or anyone else any good by sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the obvious.

Additionally, I wish that pro-choice activists would stop focusing on minor things like this, because it expends effort that could be directed at people like Richard "Gift from God" Mourdock.
Yes, well, pro-choice activists wish the anti-abortion activists would stop trying "minor things" like this. And I'm sure anti-abortion activists would just love for the pro-choice activists to ignore "minor things" like this. But all it will take for the anti-abortion activists to take away women's rights is for the pro-choice activists to stop calling out "minor things" like this. The only people who benefit from not having "minor" underhanded and dishonest things made loudly public are the people who are doing underhanded and dishonest things, minor or otherwise.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #224 on: February 02, 2013, 08:29:20 PM »
Well, technically, aborting can destroy evidence. The assumption in most of the discussion so far is that the woman getting the abortion is choosing to do so of her own free will, in which case sure, she could keep the foetus or arrange for investigators to get it somehow.

But imagine a case where a daughter has been molested by her father. The daughter gets pregnant, and the father - to avoid the crime being detected, and especially to avoid having it pinned on him - forces her to get an abortion.

That example is precisely the kind of behavior this law is targeting. He would be guilty of tampering with evidence under this law.

*shrug*