You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 12:08:58 AM

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 13340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Saria

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #225 on: February 03, 2013, 06:26:49 PM »
He would be guilty of tampering with evidence under the existing law. That's quite clearly "destroying... physical evidence with intent to prevent {his} apprehension, prosecution or conviction".

What the new law does is make it functionally impossible for a rape victim to get an abortion under any circumstances until her rape case is closed... even if she wants to abort the baby. Why? Because before this addition, the only way to get charged with tampering with evidence would be if the abortion was done "with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another". That's why the father in the example would get charged: he's clearly trying to prevent his own apprehension, prosecution and conviction. But a woman who was pregnant with a rape baby could have an abortion if she wanted to, assuming she's not trying to "prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another" (which normally wouldn't be the case - a rape victim getting an abortion under normal circumstances is hardly trying to get her rapist off, or frame someone else). What's changed? The new clause says you get charged for having an abortion merely if you did it "with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime". Notice the difference? Under the new text, you don't have to be trying to dodge justice (or helping someone dodge justice)... you merely have to be intentionally destroying evidence - which the pregnancy obviously is - regardless of your reason for doing it.

To make the difference clear, here are some sample conversations, pretending everyone's honest for simplicity (normally the court would decide what happened based on the facts it knows - but for simplicity, I'll just assume everyone just says what really happened up front). First, the incestuous, paedophile father under the old law:

FATHER: I forced my daughter to get an abortion, to cover up that she was carrying my baby.
JUDGE: That's "destroying ... physical evidence with intent to prevent {your} apprehension, prosecution or conviction". You're going to jail for evidence tampering, buddy.

And under the new law:

FATHER: I forced my daughter to get an abortion, to cover up that she was carrying my baby.
JUDGE: That's "destroying ... physical evidence with intent to prevent {your} apprehension, prosecution or conviction". You're going to jail for evidence tampering, buddy.
JUDGE: Oh, and by the way, you also shouldn't have coerced the abortion to destroy evidence, but that's the same crime, so... it's already covered.

Basically, no change.

Now, consider a woman who was raped, got pregnant, then while waiting months for the rape trial, had an abortion (because she didn't want to carry a rape baby to term, obviously - not to get the rapist off the hook). Under existing law:

RAPE VICTIM: I had an abortion because I didn't want to have a baby - especially a baby by my rapist.
JUDGE: Well, you did intentionally destroy evidence, but it wasn't "with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another", so you're clear.

And under the new law:

RAPE VICTIM: I had an abortion because I didn't want to have a baby - especially a baby by my rapist.
JUDGE: Well, you did intentionally destroy evidence... and even though it wasn't "with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another", it was an abortion with intent to destroy evidence. You're going to jail.

Since the outcry, the only change Cathrynn Brown has apparently made to the law protects the rape victim from prosecution. Like literally. So far as I've heard, the only change is the addition of one sentence: "In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged under this subsection." If that's true, then....

RAPE VICTIM: I had an abortion because I didn't want to have a baby - especially a baby by my rapist.
JUDGE: Well, you did intentionally destroy evidence... and even though it wasn't "with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another", it was an abortion with intent to destroy evidence. But you're the rape victim, so you're off the hook. However... what's the name of the doctor who gave you the abortion?
RAPE VICTIM: Doctor Smith?
JUDGE: Yes, Doctor Smith. Did she know the baby she was aborting was a rape baby?
RAPE VICTIM: Of course, because of all the recommendations that women who want an abortion have to be "counselled" about them before they can get one (another stupid legal idea, by the way, though counselling isn't mandatory in NM as it is in other states), I naturally explained that's why I wanted the abortion.
JUDGE: Alright then. Officer, go collect Doctor Smith. She knowingly and intentionally destroyed evidence, and because it was via abortion it doesn't matter that her intent wasn't to prevent justice. It's jail for her.

And let me stress again: Cathrynn Brown is a lawyer, and had been for decades before she decided to turn politician. She knows exactly what she's doing with this new wording. Her previous "mistake" was simply setting the net too wide (which probably wasn't really a "mistake" in the sense that the law didn't do what she wanted, but it was certainly a political miscalculation - she has tons of legal experience, but very little political experience), but her intentions are crystal clear: this is not about attempting to prevent people from hiding evidence of a crime, because that is not what the new wording says (and the existing clause already covers that). The existing law already covers any situation that this new law would without being unreasonably draconian, as the new law is. This is a sneaky, underhanded attempt to criminalize abortion - at least in these limited circumstances - nothing more, nothing less. It should be called out for exactly what it is, nor for what she is pretending it is.

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 #226 on: February 03, 2013, 06:38:48 PM »
It's an interesting angle, but whether something like that would happen depends almost entirely on a) the judge, and b) the prosecutor. The reason judges and prosecutors have discretion is to essentially prevent the law from acting like a machine or computer program that solely takes in "this person did this" and spits out "therefore they go to jail". So it really will vary on a case by case basis - if the law passes.

Offline Saria

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #227 on: February 05, 2013, 01:57:41 PM »
Yes, but that's true for any law, including a straight-up ban on abortion. That doesn't mean we don't need to worry about unjust laws being passed.

Besides, judges don't have that much discretion - they can't simply choose not to prosecute the law. If someone with standing files the charge, that's that; assuming defendant is found guilty, a judge has to hand down the minimum sentence if one exists (this why mandatory minimums are so bad), and even if there's no mandatory sentence, the defendant gets a criminal record. And all it takes for the wheels of justice to start turning is for someone with standing to file the charge - and it's a pretty safe bet someone with an anti-abortion axe to grind will have both standing and the mean-spirited will to do it.

But even if the law is never successfully prosecuted, it's still very dangerous. It's mere existence is a threat to anyone who might be involved with helping a rape victim get an abortion. Doctors might be afraid to even risk being charged with evidence tampering, so long as the law is on the books.

That's part of the strategy of anti-abortion activists; you don't need to make abortion illegal to make it functionally impossible, you just need to make it difficult or dangerous. They've tried and failed to make abortion illegal through legitimate means, so instead they terrorize abortion doctors, photograph women on their way in and out of abortion clinics, make funding hard to get, make insurance coverage for abortions hard to get, and add all kinds of silly restrictions and hoops to jump through like waiting periods, mandatory counselling and forcing women to look at ultrasounds of the foetus. Bit by bit they sneak more obstacles into the process, and while each step is may appear to be "minor things" not worth focusing attention on, they add up. And as the GOP gets more and more extremist and crazy at both federal and state levels, the pace is increasing. In fact, it's reached a fever pitch since the Tea Party movement started gaining real political traction. See for yourself; this is the number of anti-abortion laws passed in the US (linked to source):


The end of year for 2012 isn't out yet, but here's how it looked at the half-way mark:


As they point out in the article, that's less than the record set at the half-way mark of the previous year, but still more at the half-way point than any other year's total.

It's more important now than it's been in decades to jump on every little attempt by the anti-abortion crowd to further erode women's rights in the US - even those attempts that seem completely idiotic and unlikely to do much harm.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #228 on: February 05, 2013, 02:21:38 PM »
Wow.. just when I thought it could get more depressing.

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 #229 on: February 05, 2013, 05:10:01 PM »
When I talked to a lawyer about the law, they noted that the law is essentially useless except for plea bargains. Which is about what I expected.

Offline Saria

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #230 on: February 05, 2013, 10:30:21 PM »
Wow.. just when I thought it could get more depressing.
Well, I'm loathe to depress you more but... what would you say if I told you that Brown's bill is not the only anti-abortion bill before the New Mexico legislature right now?

Look up New Mexico House Bill 122, put forward by Nora Espinoza. Anyone wanna take bets on which party Nora Espinoza is with?

Oh, but I can't leave you too depressed. Unfortunately, the best I can provide you with is some really dark humour, but if you're up for it, skip down to the horizontal line. It might cheer you up a little, even if only in a bleak way.

When I talked to a lawyer about the law, they noted that the law is essentially useless except for plea bargains. Which is about what I expected.
Okay, sure, but other lawyers disagree. For example: Laura Schauer Ives - she's the legal director of the New Mexico ACLU (who, incidentally, said exactly what I did: that the existing evidence tampering law already covers what Brown said she wanted to cover).

There's no denying it's an absolutely stupidly written law. Brown herself is swearing blind that it wasn't her fault - she says she asked the legislature's crack legal team to draft the bill, and when they did she told them to add something to let the rape victim off the hook (she claims they told her it wasn't necessary, but she wanted it anyway), but somehow that didn't get added before it was put submitted. (And somehow, she and nine other co-sponsors failed to notice that. She also made some noise about how the Democrats leaked the draft to smear her, but that's complete bullshit because the text that's "smearing" her is the text she finally submitted, as can be seen on the NM legislature record - not some unpolished draft that was sneakily leaked. There's no doubt the Democrats are having a field day rubbing her nose in it, but that's hardly underhanded; if you do something that stupid you deserve to be made an ass of.) But the fact that it's a stupidly written law is a red herring. The problem was that it was even proposed at all. There is no wording that can save this idea - any reasonable use it might have is already covered. You shouldn't write laws just for the hell of it, and you shouldn't write laws to cover stuff that's already well-covered by existing law. No amount of good intentions justifies that level of incompetence.

And in fact, the fact that the law is so completely useless helps highlight Brown's intentions. Let me explain with an example. Suppose you had a perfectly good law against punching people in the face. It covers everything ably, with the proper exemptions (so that, for example, the participants in a boxing match won't be guilty of a crime), and there's no reason whatsoever to modify it. Then along comes a lawmaker who adds an addendum to the law. The new addendum doesn't actually add anything new to the existing law; everything it covers and exempts was covered and exempted before. All the new addendum does is add special wording for a specific case. That special wording and specific case? The case where a black person punches a white person in the face. Again, let me stress: the new addendum doesn't add a law against black people punching white people in the face - that was covered before. It doesn't change anything, in the end. The general case of a person punching another person in the face was already ably covered. All the new addendum does is add wording that specifically covers a black person punching a white person in the face. That's all it does, and while it does no harm (because that special case was already covered), it was completely unnecessary. Wouldn't you agree that the intention of such an addendum is obviously racist, and nothing else? That there is no way that any sane, reasonable person would say it can't be intended to be racist? What about if the lawmaker proposing the changes was the head of the KKK - what about then?

So now consider an addendum to a perfectly good evidence tampering law that adds a specific provision for abortions. Assume that it's actually a well-written addendum, and not the stupid one actually submitted, so that it adds absolutely nothing to the law that wasn't covered before, and it takes nothing away that was. All it does is add wording that specifically covers abortions. Isn't it painfully obvious that the intention of such an addendum is obviously anti-abortion, and nothing else? Is it even necessary to mention that Brown is the head of an anti-abortion group?

It's so obviously an attempt to curtail women's rights, get around Roe v. Wade, and criminalize abortion that it baffles me that anyone could even try to argue the bill has a legitimate purpose. It doesn't matter that it was a bad law, that it wouldn't have worked as intended or that it would never have passed. The mere act deserves recognition and condemnation. It's the same as if someone tabled a bill in favour of racial segregation, using some sneaky premise to try and get around Brown v. BoE - it wouldn't matter that if the law was poorly written, if it wouldn't have worked as intended, or that it would never have passed... the mere act of proposing such a bill deserves loud and vigorous condemnation. How much condemnation - when is enough enough? Well, I don't know... but I'd say it should at least go on as long as Brown refuses to apologize for it. (And no, blaming interns and the Democrats for your mistake is not an apology.)

The mere existence of the bill warrants any outrage it gets, regardless of how well or poorly written is and regardless of whether it would actually work or not. The fact that it's so incompetent is a bonus, and merely adds justification for outright mockery.



Incidentally, one of the lawyers I talked to about it pointed something else out about the bill (with the new, revised language) that is... actually kind of hilarious. It turns out that far from making it tougher for rapists to coerce abortions to try and get away with their crime... this bill would actually introduce a loophole to allow some rapists to get away with it! In other words, this bill does absolutely nothing to strengthen the law (other than punishing innocent, legitimate abortion providers)... but it does add a loophole to weaken it!

And what is that loophole? Well, it's actually kind of funny, and it's the kind of thing you probably have to be a lawyer to spot. But, check this out:

First of all, here's the new text of the bill, from what I know (it's not available yet). Section A is the original text, section B is the insertion:

Quote
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. In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged under this subsection.

So, without section B and with section A alone, any time someone tries to destroy physical evidence to cover up a crime - for example forcing or tricking someone into an abortion to hide evidence of a rape - that's tampering with evidence.

What section B does is basically restate the rules of section A, except it makes it specific to abortion, and it makes the intent broader (intent to destroy evidence rather than intent to cover up a crime). So it should make the law tougher, and make it cover more, right?

Well, no. :-)

Try to guess what the loophole is before reading the spoiler.
The last sentence of the new text is: "In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged under this subsection." This was added because the original text made the rape victim a criminal for getting an abortion. But it has another... kinda funny side-effect.

What's the catch? Well, consider this: what if the mother of the foetus is the rapist? :-)

Say what? Well, consider this.

Suppose I drugged or otherwise incapacitated some guy, and raped them. The guy is not sure he was raped (because he was drugged), but, surprise! I got pregnant from the rape. Now when he finds out about the pregnancy, the guy will demand the foetus be DNA tested (with or without an abortion), and I'll be caught. So I quickly have an abortion before he can get the subpoena.

Now, before Cathrynn Brown shat all over New Mexico law, this would be a pretty open and shut case: I destroyed the physical evidence of a crime to prevent a conviction - my own - so I'd be guilty of tampering with evidence. Case closed, I'd be going to jail.

But under the new law, as the mother of the foetus, "in no circumstance" can I be charged with evidence tampering. :-)

Even if that circumstance happens to be... that I was actually the rapist. ;)

You see? Far from improving the law, Cathrynn Brown done nothing to make it harder for rapists to get away with coercing abortions to avoid conviction, and has actually made it possible for certain kinds of rapists to get away with destruction of evidence that wouldn't have gotten away with it before her additions.

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 #231 on: February 05, 2013, 10:57:31 PM »
Okay, sure, but other lawyers disagree. For example: Laura Schauer Ives - she's the legal director of the New Mexico ACLU (who, incidentally, said exactly what I did: that the existing evidence tampering law already covers what Brown said she wanted to cover).

Well... good for Ives?

It pretty much continues to be a waste of time and effort. Better to let Brown expend whatever energy she is going to on something petty than have Brown trying to draft up anything resembling an actually effective bill.

Edited due to a case of too-many-pronoun-itis.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 08:38:54 PM by Trieste »

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #232 on: February 05, 2013, 11:02:31 PM »
I find it annoying that calories have to be wasted on this build.

Honestly.. these sort of laws are just a waste of ink.

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 #233 on: February 05, 2013, 11:49:38 PM »
I think I disagree with the following bit, Saria:

Quote
How much condemnation - when is enough enough? Well, I don't know... but I'd say it should at least go on as long as Brown refuses to apologize for it. (And no, blaming interns and the Democrats for your mistake is not an apology.)

Specifically the bolded bit (obviously).

It's not clear to me what she has to apologise for?  Even if we accept the rest of your argument as utter fact - that this is a bill introduced to curtail abortion rights - why should an elected representative apologise for introducing it?  She's the head of an anti-abortion group and never seems to have hidden that fact - from the incredibly brief googling I did.  The people of New Mexico had access to that info and voted her in - sure it wasn't a particularly exciting race but thats beside the point.

If you're gonna vote in the head of an anti-abortion group I don't think you can stand with slack jawed astonishment when they try to pass anti abortion measures. 

But more importantly, if you're head of an anti-abortion group and run for office I think its reasonable to assume you have some form of mandate to look at anti-abortion measures.  It's what the people want, as expressed by them voting you in.

There doesn't seem to be an "apology" due.  Not to say there shouldn't be ramifications but she's done nothing "wrong" which would merit an apology.

Offline Saria

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #234 on: February 09, 2013, 09:15:10 AM »
It's not clear to me what she has to apologise for?  Even if we accept the rest of your argument as utter fact - that this is a bill introduced to curtail abortion rights - why should an elected representative apologise for introducing it?  She's the head of an anti-abortion group and never seems to have hidden that fact - from the incredibly brief googling I did.  The people of New Mexico had access to that info and voted her in - sure it wasn't a particularly exciting race but thats beside the point.

If you're gonna vote in the head of an anti-abortion group I don't think you can stand with slack jawed astonishment when they try to pass anti abortion measures. 

But more importantly, if you're head of an anti-abortion group and run for office I think its reasonable to assume you have some form of mandate to look at anti-abortion measures.  It's what the people want, as expressed by them voting you in.

There doesn't seem to be an "apology" due.  Not to say there shouldn't be ramifications but she's done nothing "wrong" which would merit an apology.
She has many things to apologize for, but no, showing her true stripes is not one of them.

She should apologize for her unbelievable incompetence. Whatever her motives with the bill, it was an unbelievably stupid one - she even admitted that herself. She failed to do due diligence before putting it before the House, thus wasting time and taxpayer money, and embarrassing all of New Mexico, which she represents. If nothing else, she should at least apologize for that. She hasn't yet.

She should also apologize for the smarmy way she tried to shift the blame for her incompetence onto everyone else - the bill drafters, the Democrats, the general public that reacted with shock to the bill she tabled - rather than taking professional responsibility for her mistake. She's supposed to be a community leader, but her response to the outrage has been deplorable. I don't know why it should be different for elected lawmakers, but as an engineer, if I submitted a design that was woefully flawed to the point that it was so dangerous it might kill someone, I wouldn't think I could get off the hook by blaming the printer, the references provided by the suppliers, or a competing engineer who pointed out the flaws in my design.

Most importantly, though, she should apologize for her dishonesty. Yes, she's a shameless anti-abortion activist, and yes this is obviously an anti-abortion law... but the thing is: she swears it's not an anti-abortion bill. If she were simply trying to pass anti-abortion legislation, then there wouldn't be a problem, but to disguise her true intention, she is pretending that what she's really doing is protecting rape victims. She has even said that she's aware that existing law would have served the purpose; she just insists that she cares so much about rape victims (that she apparently wanted to make felons of them - okay, that's not true, she didn't really want to make felons of them, but if she really cared about them then you wouldn't think they'd be a (forgotten) afterthought in the legislation she supposedly drafted to protect them). It's so plainly obvious that the bill is really about banning abortion that even her supporters admit that - the only one who hasn't come out and admitted it yet is her. So she tried to deceive the public and hide anti-abortion legislation under the banner of protecting rape victims - a rather callous ploy, really. She should apologize for attempting to deceive the public, and for the callous way she tried to do it. She should also apologize to the victims of rape and abuse she tried to co-opt to accomplish her anti-abortion agenda.

In fact, even if want to refute everything I've said - if you want to deny all of my conclusions about her intentions and believe that she's really being honest that this wasn't a ploy to ban abortion and really was about the rape victims - all that would mean is that she was just really, really, really stupid, as opposed to deceptive and underhanded. That's still something she should apologize for. So, even if we are to give the most generous benefit of the doubt, she still should be apologetic, and not defiant and accusatory as she has been.

If all she had tried to do was just table an anti-abortion bill, then she would have nothing to apologize for - she would be heavily criticized, yes, but you don't need to apologize for having an unpopular view or standing up for what you believe in. But that's not what she did. She used deception and underhanded tactics, and she did so with alarming incompetence. So: incompetence, wasting legislative time, wasting taxpayer money, her poor behaviour when the bill was criticized, being dishonest about her intentions with the bill, taking advantage of rape victims for her own agenda... she has a ton of things to apologize for.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #235 on: February 09, 2013, 11:29:53 AM »
Hmm.. I wonder..

Could the state try to extradite doctors from out of state (or try to arrest them when they come to New Mexico) for breaking the law?


Offline Stattick

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #236 on: February 13, 2013, 05:53:34 AM »
Well... good for her?

It pretty much continues to be a waste of time and effort. Better to let her expend whatever energy she is going to on something petty than have her trying to draft up anything resembling an actually effective bill.

Well, obviously she, and millions of others don't consider fighting these sorts of bills to be a waste of time and effort. You have the constitution right to consider the matter petty if you wish. Most people do not consider it petty though, no matter which side of the abortion debate they're on. Most people in this country have strong and passionate opinions on abortion, and would find someone trying to just handwave the whole thing aside as "petty" to be bizarre.

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 #237 on: February 13, 2013, 07:55:59 AM »
Well, obviously she, and millions of others don't consider fighting these sorts of bills to be a waste of time and effort. You have the constitution right to consider the matter petty if you wish. Most people do not consider it petty though, no matter which side of the abortion debate they're on. Most people in this country have strong and passionate opinions on abortion, and would find someone trying to just handwave the whole thing aside as "petty" to be bizarre.

*gigglefits* I have been called a number of things in this board, both directly and obliquely, but I think you are the first person to imply that the opinions I hold are not passionate. It's a laughable and demonstrably wrong implication - you just made my morning. ;D

I said this bill, and when I made mouth noises in the post you quoted, they were about Brown. This would be the second time in one thread that you've tried to straw man me in this particular thread and I really wish you would stop.

Edit: Pssst, this was the first one. :)
« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 07:57:26 AM by Trieste »

Offline Stattick

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #238 on: February 13, 2013, 03:13:42 PM »
*gigglefits* I have been called a number of things in this board, both directly and obliquely, but I think you are the first person to imply that the opinions I hold are not passionate. It's a laughable and demonstrably wrong implication - you just made my morning. ;D

I said this bill, and when I made mouth noises in the post you quoted, they were about Brown. This would be the second time in one thread that you've tried to straw man me in this particular thread and I really wish you would stop.

Edit: Pssst, this was the first one. :)

Oh. You've spent a bunch of time in this thread defending Brown and her bill. You've spent time dismissing we who would fight against the bill and it's author, implying that we're getting worked up over nothing. You've defended your positions multiple times, and have attacked all arguments that are contrary to your opinions, excepting those that you ignored completely. Your post that I had quoted above (this one), is ambiguous. No where do you specify which "her" or "she" you're talking about. It could be Cathrynn Brown or Laura Schauer Ives. Or hell, it could even be possible to interpret part of your statement as being directed toward Saria.

So, while I feel bad that I mischaracterized you, in light of your previous behavior in this thread and your ambiguous post, I think it's easy to see how I interpreted your post as an attack against Ives and those of us that are pro-choice. And by reading it in that way, it seemed that the most charitable way of interpreting your use of "petty" was by calling us petty for giving a rat's ass about Brown and shitty bill. Clarity is the writer's onus. So no, I was not making a straw man argument. I was simply responding to an ambiguous post, which I interpreted in the manner that seemed to me to best fit the posting style and arguments of the writer.

Also, I chose not to respond to you the first time you accused me of making a straw man argument against you because I was trying to keep the peace between us. But no, that was no straw man argument that I made, when I said that you were defending a bill that could be used to force rape victims to carry their incest babies to term. Because it would be used in that way. And you're defending that bill. Ergo, you're okay with the bill being used in that way. Or perhaps you're just naive, and think that the (mostly) fundamentalist, slut-shaming, Anti-Choice crowd is full of puppies and spice and everything nice?

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 #239 on: February 13, 2013, 09:10:21 PM »
First - thank you for pointing out the ambiguity of the post; I actually hadn't realized it was that ambiguous when I made it, and I have gone back and corrected the overusage of pronouns.

Second - on the subject of that post, I'm not going to get into a "my lawyer is better/more qualified than your lawyer!", especially when I really don't have time to toss walls of text around. I just don't. When I sought an opinion on this proposed law, I sought out a prosecutor with over a decade of experience in prosecuting sex crimes - someone who, by any measure I can think of, is intimately familiar with how the law is used in that situation. The rebuttal was sourced to an attorney whose job it is, arguably, to find things to litigate against. The ACLU is wonderful in some ways, and face-palmingly vicious in other ways. They are a double-edged sword. That is my opinion. I question Ives' apparent opinion based on the fact that her bias is high, and so is her potential involvement.

Third - I have been vehemently pro-choice in nearly every other post except the ones regarding Brown's asinine bill. Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. I know you've seen them; you've commented on some of them. So where did this sudden, "You clearly don't care about a woman's choice?!" stance come up?

I think it's not very easy to interpret my past posts as "an attack against [...] those of us who are pro-choice" (This may surprise you: polls have been showing that the majority of Americans are increasingly opposed to a blanket ban on abortions, and most Americans think that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned - "pro-choice" qualifies as "most of the country", despite the vocal and indescribably stupid minority that has been in the news lately; still a long way to go but by the numbers it's safer to assume that the person you're talking to is pro-choice rather than not, especially on a site like Elliquiy.) unless you interpret "This bitch isn't worth the effort" as "ZOMG SHE IS RIGHT!!!!".

Which it is clearly not.

I am not defending the bill.

I am saying it isn't worth the fight. I think it's naive, in fact, to speak as if the pro-choice movement has unlimited time, manpower, and resources to fight every single thing that might possibly be construed as maybe anti-choice that comes down the pipe.

ND HB 1456 and 1305 are bills I'm concerned about. This Kansas bill is despicable (my favorite phrase in the article: " would exempt doctors from malpractice suits if they withheld medical information to prevent an abortion") and it appears to be back up for vote. The requirements for pre-abortion procedures meant to discourage women who have already made a terrible decision from going through with it need to be overturned. (Texas still requires a transvaginal ultrasound and for the mother to hear the fetal heartbeat last I checked.) There is legislation in the works (and some of it already approved) that allows (or even requires) doctors to lie to their patients to discourage them from abortion. And on the more local level, you have things like zoning laws being changed to disallow abortion providers from remaining in operation. You have lawmakers who are attempting to actively and directly levy every monetary difficulty and legal guilt trip they possibly can on doctors and patients alike.

So Brown puts forth a tangentially related bill that might or might not pass, and after it passes it might or might not see any use at all, and if it sees use it might or might not maybe possibly be used to prosecute a doctor - provided the local prosecutor isn't already overwhelmed and understaffed. I say it's pretty much irrelevant. And suddenly I'm met with "those of us who are pro-choice"?

Because I don't see the need to fiddle with Brown's fumbling until/unless it becomes relevant, what, have I suddenly lost all my 'pro-choice cred' on the street?

Tch.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 09:12:28 PM by Trieste »

Offline Serephino

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #240 on: February 13, 2013, 10:56:35 PM »
Every bill like this that comes out is worth fighting against.  If this thing passes, it will be used by some pro-life judge against a rape victim.  It's what they do.  And then, once they get that passed, they will push for more.  Those bills that do worry you are proof of that.  The past few years are proof of that.  The GOP just keeps pushing, and going farther.  I get a women's health update thing in my email that tells me what lawmakers are trying to pull.  That's why you can't let anything slide with these idiots.  Give them an inch and they'll take a mile because they can.

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #241 on: February 13, 2013, 11:28:50 PM »
There are times when I cringe shamefully, when I read or hear of things like this. I cringe shamefully because I consider myself a conservative Republican. Yet nothing would steer me completely away from self-identifying as conservative. No one I know that identifies like I do believes rape is anything like 'God's Will' or that it anything but a monstrosity. Myself and nobody I know wants their mothers, sisters, girlfriends or wives to go without essential medical services like pap smears and the like.

Do you all (I say all as most here are entrenched liberals) ever cringe when Pelosi says: "You have to pass the bill in order to know what is in it!" referring to the healthcare bill. Do you? No, I'm not making a comparison between that and what this article refers to. Have you ever admitted you're sometimes ashamed of your own party, so-to-speak?

I can say I am, but then the GOP doesn't represent or speak for me. That I do for myself. 

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 #242 on: February 13, 2013, 11:34:59 PM »
If we apply the Forrest Gump test (stupid is as stupid does), I don't think any party comes out ahead...

Some individual politicians really impress me, though (... can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment  >:(), and some really just don't.

Offline Thesunmaid

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #243 on: February 14, 2013, 04:37:46 AM »
Here's an idea GOP...you go out boating and you fall into the water...now if your righteous and christian then god will save you...so your body will reject the water...oh and for all those good wholesome people out there that have ever been in a fire...don't worry your bodies will reject the smoke...ya know because we all know that the man in the sky does shit like that.

Offline 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 #244 on: February 14, 2013, 08:25:35 AM »
If we apply the Forrest Gump test (stupid is as stupid does), I don't think any party comes out ahead...

Some individual politicians really impress me, though (... can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment  >:(), and some really just don't.

Bernie Sanders.  I've considered moving to Vermont just to be able to vote for him.

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 #245 on: February 14, 2013, 08:58:38 AM »
Bernie Sanders.  I've considered moving to Vermont just to be able to vote for him.

Touche!

Offline Brittany

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #246 on: February 15, 2013, 10:07:15 AM »
Comments such as legitimate rape, and degrees of rape always confuse me.  Like the majority of crimes I can think of, one rape case is very rarely the exact same as the last.

For instance, if you are in a nightclub, you get very drunk, get taunted into a fight and the result is the other person dies, it is manslaughter.  It is also manslaughter if you go out with the intention to hurt somebody, but not kill them, and attack them and they die.

Are these two cases different?  Of course.  You may feel more sympathy for offender a than offender b.  You may have different opinions on the cases.  But legally both are exactly the same, murder without motive to murder.  Offender A may have a better chance of convincing a jury that he deserves a lesser sentence, but the crime remains the same.  It is the same with rape.

Case a. A woman walks down the street and gets attacked by a stranger
Case b. A woman invites a guy back to her hotel room for kissing and petting, gets naked, but changes her mind and asks him to stop.

You may feel attacker A is a more dangerous man than attacker B and he may well be.  An argument is sometimes made (I don't personally concur with) that victim B could have avoided the situation by being more aware of her own security and safety.  So you may form thoughts and opinions that are different based on the two cases, and this is somewhat natural.  Your personal sympathies may differ towards the victims.

However when it comes down to it, like the manslaughter cases, it's the exact same thing with the exact same result.  The man has forced himself on the woman against her will and the woman then has to live with that.  There is no "degree" or "legitimacy" involved.  Rape is Rape.  Peoples personal opinions and sympathies may vary case from case as they do with all criminal cases, but at the end of the day both are victims of the same crime.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 11:48:54 AM by Brittany »

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter


Offline Saria

Re: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid
« Reply #248 on: February 16, 2013, 12:12:03 PM »
Hmm.. I wonder..

Could the state try to extradite doctors from out of state (or try to arrest them when they come to New Mexico) for breaking the law?
Bearing in mind that I'm neither a lawyer nor an expert in US or New Mexico law....

Sure they could. The US Constitution has an article that implies that states are supposed to presume that any legal request made by another state is legit. That means that if another state files for extradition, a state should assume the extradition is legit, and do the rendition. States do have the right to refuse - and they have in rare cases, usually involving the death penalty - but they don't usually. So if New Mexico demanded an out-of-state abortion doctor be handed over, in theory it would probably happen.

And as for simply arresting the doctor should they choose to enter NM... sure, why not? Who could stop them?

So they could, but would they? I don't really see that as likely, even if they manage to get a law like Brown's passed. It would almost certainly spark a shitstorm that would require federal intervention - possibly even Supreme Court intervention, and legislators do not like it when the Supreme Court gets involved.

There are times when I cringe shamefully, when I read or hear of things like this. I cringe shamefully because I consider myself a conservative Republican. Yet nothing would steer me completely away from self-identifying as conservative. No one I know that identifies like I do believes rape is anything like 'God's Will' or that it anything but a monstrosity. Myself and nobody I know wants their mothers, sisters, girlfriends or wives to go without essential medical services like pap smears and the like.

Do you all (I say all as most here are entrenched liberals) ever cringe when Pelosi says: "You have to pass the bill in order to know what is in it!" referring to the healthcare bill. Do you? No, I'm not making a comparison between that and what this article refers to. Have you ever admitted you're sometimes ashamed of your own party, so-to-speak?

I can say I am, but then the GOP doesn't represent or speak for me. That I do for myself.
There is nothing wrong with being a conservative, and don't ever let anyone - even a hard-core entrenched liberal like myself - tell you otherwise. I'm not a Democrat, but if I were I would welcome a strong and sane Republican party, because robust political debate strengthens the entire system. Everyone wins - the Democrats would be kept on their toes and keen on what issues Americans care about, and Americans would benefit from a government with a strong opposition to check them. And there are plenty of Republicans worthy of respect; David Frum springs to mind.

The problem is that the Republican party has swung off into crazy land. I don't know you, but I assume you're a reasonable person, so you must see that. You can't have missed the fact that one of the leading contenders for the next presidential nomination is proud that he once performed an exorcism on an unwilling girl. You can't have missed the fact that of the last round of potential presidential candidates, only one was willing to stand up for the scientific consensus on evolution and climate change - and he said he could be called crazy for doing it! This is a party that has created a science committee where next to no one on the committee thinks the Earth is older than a few thousand years. I could keep going (and you'll notice I mentioned nothing about "legitimate rape", perpetual pregnancies or any of that nonsense - there's just too much stupidity in the GOP right now to choose from), but you must know all this. You must see that anytime someone in politics does or says something really stupid or offensive, chances are they're going to have an R after their name.

The Republican party has chosen to build its base on crazy and ignorant people and become the party of anti-science, and that puts any sane, intelligent and conscientious Republican supporter in a horrible position. Your two party system has left you little choice: unless you want to support that lunacy, you either vote for the other guys, or give up your vote. I don't envy the position you're in any more than I would have envied the position Democrats were in up to around 50 years ago when the Democratic party was the racist/slavery party. But any party that tries to build its base on stupidity or bigotry is a party that needs to be smacked down. A few election cycles of being the laughingstock of American politics and getting a paltry portion of the votes would set that party right damn quick. Not voting for the Republicans is probably the best thing you can do for them right now; the party is sick, and it won't fix itself until it stops getting votes. And it won't fix itself quickly - it took 20+ years for the GOP to get in this state (though it really accelerated in response to Obama, with the birth of the Tea Party), and while it doesn't need to take that long to get sane... it won't be done in one or two election cycles.

I know it sucks - not having a party that can represent you is a bitch. (Though, for the record, I have no idea what it feels like to be ashamed of "my own" party, because I don't "have" a party. I support whichever party is the most reasonable, and provides the best argument for why I should give it power. If the party I voted for in the last election lets me down - and it has happened - there's no cause to be "ashamed"; there is no shame in being hoodwinked once. Twice, though, would be a problem, which is why I simply wouldn't vote for them next cycle. Perhaps you might avoid that embarrassment if you voted based on merit, rather than picking a party and sticking by it like a sports team.) If you could get every Republican who recognizes that the party has gone batshit crazy with misogyny and anti-scientific foolishness to send a message to the party by voting against them for just one, maybe two, four year election cycles... then that would put an end to the foolishness cold, and bring back intelligence, reason and respectability to the GOP. Sadly, that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

(Incidentally, you have misquoted Pelosi - or more likely you heard about that quote via Fox News or some Republican attack ad, and neglected to fact check it yourself, which is always a bad idea. She did not say "you have to pass the bill in order to know what is in it". She said: "WE have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what's in it". And then there's the missing context that explains what she meant. As you said, the quote was about the health care bill. At the time there was a lot of garbage being said in the media about what was in the bill - remember "death panels"? Pelosi was saying to Americans that the best way to show them (Americans) how much garbage all that media talk was... was to pass the bill, then the reality of what the bill was would speak for itself, and put all those lies and all that bullshit to rest. Wikiquote has the full quote, sourced, but here is the relevant part: After talking about the main good features of the bill, she says, "It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Pelosi was perfectly well aware of what was in the bill before she passed it - she had just listed a litany of its features before that mined quote. There's nothing stupid about that quote, and nothing to be ashamed of. I get that you want to find an example of Democrat stupidity to at least balance out some of the Republican stupidity, but frankly the GOP is so far gone that you're going to have a hell of a time finding things that the Democrats have done that are even close to the same scale of stupid - even if you try using manufactured examples like this Pelosi misquote. Besides, the effort itself is misguided; the GOP is messed up, and you know that, so the right thing to do is just admit that and work toward fixing it... not to try and find ways to feel better about it by looking for failings in the other parties.)

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 #249 on: February 20, 2013, 12:10:37 AM »
Not sure how to feel about this. If she were emancipated, on her own, and not dependent on her parents, I would be cheering wholeheartedly. However, she is not, and now the parents are court-ordered to pay for essentially another dependent.

Children are not allowed to get tattoos and piercings without parental consent. Why in the world should something as enormously more complex as a child be looked on with more permissiveness?

http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abortion-battle-150554993--abc-news-topstories.html