A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.



Source

Chances this will never pass but just to even considering it is sick.

The very bottom line - relevant?

I didn't think they could beat "legitimate rape", but I am humbled once again.

so it's an anti-abortion bill, really. No abortion for anyone for any reason.

Par for the course in the southern US states.

Let's put it into context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio...tates_by_state

This is all well and scary, but it's not gonna pass, so IMO, it's much ado about nothing.

Every year, someone introduces a bill like this somewhere in the US. Mostly, it's to placate the rabid pro-lifers, as I believe even the bill's sponsor has no expectation of it actually passing. It gets talked up for awhile, to keep the voting base locked in, and then quietly dies in some committee. Even if the sponsor is that looney-tunes, there's not enough like-minded individuals to get it to pass.

I don't see it as just an anti-abortion bill.

We all know that a rape can be easily prove with DNA. Now imagine if the fetus is used as evidence while it is completely unnecessary and futile. By introducing fetus as an evidence, what is left for the victims of rape who didn't get pregnant? No fetus evidence no proof?

By introducing this kind of law, we transform victims into being even more victim and potentially into a criminal. 3 years of prison for destructions of evidences.

Evidences shouldn't be based on a pregnancy resulting of a rape.

After hearing some of the pro-gun remarks recently, I'm not so sure.

I'm disturbed that I lived in a state where such a sick person has any power.

But it winds up the usual suspects, while giving five minutes of fame to the promotors. It thus achieves its goal to 100%.

It's all structuration... Keep both sides pulling in this game of political tug-of-war and the rope never moves, and the politicians can still peddle their influence and collect their checks.

The worst part about it is that the person who introduced the bill had (has?) no idea how it would actually be utilized.

The bill was written with the intent of helping to keep rapists and perpetrators of incest from forcing their victims to get an abortion, thereby destroying evidence.

Also, let's face it, sometimes women DO these things, although with less frequency, some boys are victims of rape or incest, so the bill would help the boys prove what happened to them if their abuser becomes pregnant.


Meanwhile though, if this is the aim, the bill appears not to be written in such a way to make that clear. I think it will be abused in a way to further victimize victims themselves - especially if those dorks in Arizona latch on to the letter (and ignore the spirit) of it and use it to further put clamps down on women's sexual rights in their state.

Yeah, turning the victim into a criminal for "tampering with evidence" is really going to help protect women in the state.

I am utterly appalled that a woman would introduce such a bill. This is not uncommon for southern "gentleman" reps and senators, but for a woman to do it is really disappointing. Also, did she really not have a clue how it would look even if her intention was...um, I don't even know what it was.

Yep, that's exactly what made me look around further.

The only person (but especially a woman!) I could think of who would introduce such a glaringly unsympathetic piece of claptrap is someone who either doesn't know anyone who was ever abused.

I was abused, since this is so, I can't fairly say that anyone I know doesn't know anyone who was abused (obviously, they know me) BUT many of the folks I know (again, especially women) do know other people who were also abused.

Why? She's putting her religion before womens' rights.

Lots of Christian fundamentalists do that.

It's not just Islam that has extremists.

Yes, I get that. And she's trying to cover it by saying it is in the victim's best interest. I guess I can't follow the lawmaker's train of thought...

Thought 1 - A woman has been forced to do something against her will (rape). The way to make that better is to...

Thought 2 - Force her to do something else possibly against her will (have the baby).

Oh, ok that makes it better.

You're not the only one - it's you and 99% of the Western world.

If the Republican party don't get her to resign then that speaks volumes too.

About "The bill was written with the intent of helping to keep rapists and perpetrators of incest from forcing their victims to get an abortion, thereby destroying evidence"
How? In these days of DNA a dead fetus provides the same evidence as a live one in terms of proving paternity.

Exactly. There's absolutely no reason to force a woman to bear the child of a rapist just to prove paternity.

With the struggle that women have in the US to be entitled to any kind of permissible abortion, it amazes me that a woman has put forward such a stupid idea. Definitely trying to appeal to the Bible thumpers and not the women she's proposing to protect.

Well, I'd been thinking about that too, but plenty of times abuse isn't reported at the time it happens. So, someone gets raped, a pregnancy occurs, an abortion occurs, THEN the victim comes forth (months or even years later)... where is the DNA evidence now?

Are hospitals and clinics then going to have to preserve all of the tissue "just in case"? For how long? Who is paying for it's storage?

Although ideally, people who are abused come forth right away, rarely does it happen that way.



Now. Just to be clear, I AGREE with what has been said. It is a horrible, horrible bill put forth by a totally unthinking and unfeeling person BUT I think also that there is more than one side to this AND we need to keep in mind that it isn't only females who suffer abuses.