Republicans Seek To Criminalize Post Rape Abortion

[Mighty AC]

The sheer lunacy of this bill made double check that I wasn't on The Onion.

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.

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

[Canuckistani]

How can that be. Since we know that "legitimately raped" women don't get pregnant, this baby would only serve to prove that the woman really wanted it and is now only claiming rape to harm a good, god fearin, man who was seduced by this evil temptress.

If she carries the fetus to term and delivers, it's no longer a fetus but a baby. If they want the fetus for evidence, they only need to wait until the 11th week before aborting.

[WIP]

Worth noting that, not very long ago, Republican politicians used to always add the caveat: EXCEPT!...in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger...when they were promoting their goal of banning abortion. Now, they are so anxious to out-crazy each other in the primaries, that they even want to ban birth control.

Edited January 25, 2013 by WIP

[BC_chick]

Right, so the rapist gets 5 years and the woman gets life.

[Bonam]

Disgusting. One truly has to exist in a different reality to be capable of proposing a law like that.

[Bryan]

Right, so the rapist gets 5 years and the woman gets life.

Better than the other option, the baby gets executed!

[Canuckistani]

Better than the other option, the baby gets executed!

Oh, crap. Canada has them tooooooooooooooooooooooo.

[Black Dog]

Better than the other option, the baby gets executed!

Not really no.

[Mighty AC]

Better than the other option, the baby gets executed!

Good ol' misogyny. This wouldn't be an issue if males could give birth.

If the lunatic bill passed, what would happen to a mother that miscarried? Maybe a negligence causing the destruction of evidence charge? What if a woman was raped but was not impregnated? Is it still rape, without evidence of a living baby 40 weeks later? According to republicans the female body can naturally fight off unwanted blastocysts, so like Canuckistani pointed out isn't the pregnancy just evidence that the woman 'wanted it'?

With any luck the batshit craziness of the religious right and the teabaggers will just hasten their inevitable return to irrelevance.

[Guest American Woman]

A more fitting title for this thread would be "GOP Representative Cathrynn Brown introduced bill that would prohibit women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion in New Mexico." One representative in the New Mexico state legislature, representing the towns of Carlsbad and Loving, is not synonymous with "Republicans." Would be nice if these things could be presented accurately; when I read the title, I thought it was something the Republican party was actually trying to accomplish in the U.S. Congress, not just one nut in a state legislature - who's already backed down.

Edited January 25, 2013 by American Woman

[Mighty AC]

Your suggestion is far too wordy for a title. Have you noticed that the Republicans seem to have cornered the market on misogyny and wingnuttery?

[cybercoma]

Republicans need to purge their party of these f'ing imbeciles.

[Canuckistani]

We got em on this board, so what are you gonna do?

[Guest American Woman]

Your suggestion is far too wordy for a title. Have you noticed that the Republicans seem to have cornered the market on misogyny and wingnuttery?

Of course "Republican" instead of "Republicans" just wouldn't have been doable either, eh? Fact is, it's not "Republicans" at all. As I pointed out, it's one Republican state legislator, in a country with how many Republicans? And for the record, she's a woman. Also for the record, any party, in any country, has a wingnut or two. I don't tend to judge the whole on one, regardless of whether it's my party or not.

[Shady]

[/size]

Of course "Republican" instead of "Republicans" just wouldn't have been doable either, eh? Fact is, it's not "Republicans" at all. As I pointed out, it's one Republican state legislator, in a country with how many Republicans? And for the record, she's a woman. Also for the record, any party, in any country, has a wingnut or two. I don't tend to judge the whole on one, regardless of whether it's my party or not.

Well said. And notice that they'll never apply this trick to say Muslims, or any minority group. Just Americans, and to a lesser extent Republicans, and Christians. But at least the bigots identify themselves with this manner of behaviour.

[WWWTT]

Republicans need to purge their party of these f'ing imbeciles.

Fat chance that will happen.

They want these fringe recluses around to appease the far right.

It's safe to say that the entire party is getting spun.

WWWTT

[kimmy]

A more fitting title for this thread would be "GOP Representative Cathrynn Brown introduced bill that would prohibit women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion in New Mexico." One representative in the New Mexico state legislature, representing the towns of Carlsbad and Loving, is not synonymous with "Republicans." Would be nice if these things could be presented accurately; when I read the title, I thought it was something the Republican party was actually trying to accomplish in the U.S. Congress, not just one nut in a state legislature - who's already backed down.

As the bill had nine Republican co-sponsors, the use of the plural "Republicans" is entirely correct.

Well said. And notice that they'll never apply this trick to say Muslims, or any minority group. Just Americans, and to a lesser extent Republicans, and Christians. But at least the bigots identify themselves with this manner of behaviour.

Perhaps Republicans will some day find their own Rosa Parks who will have the courage to sit at the front of the bus and throw off these shackles.

We know that not all Muslims are terrorists. But when somebody blows themselves up at a market, we don't even have to ask what religion they're from. And we know that not all Republicans are deranged wingnuts... but when a US politician says or does something this disgusting and offensive and repugnant, we don't have to ask what party they're from either.

Why's your team such a magnet for scumbags and imbeciles, Shady? Ever put any thought into that?

-k

[waldo]

As I pointed out, it's one Republican state legislator, in a country with how many Republicans?

speaking of Republicans and abortion, just yesterday, U.S. House Speaker Boehner says: "he will make it a national priority to help make abortion a relic of the past", further stating, "let that be one of our fundamental goals this year". Speaking at the same anti-abortion rally, U.S. Senator Rand Paul stated, "our nation is adrift, adrift in a wilderness where right and wrong have become subservient to a hedonism of the moment. I believe our country is in need of a spiritual cleansing. We must preach a gospel so full of compassion, a gospel so full of justice that it cannot be resisted. Then and only then will the law again protect the innocent."

[Guest American Woman]

As the bill had nine Republican co-sponsors, the use of the plural "Republicans" is entirely correct.

Interesting that WWWTT doesn't use that as his defense, eh? It appears as if he's been "saved by the bell," so to speak, since co-sponsors subsequently signed the bill*, which he obviously didn't know about himself. My criticism stands. From the info he had, he purposely misrepresented the situation from the knowledge he had - just as his claim that "since the Conn. school shooting 900 Americans have been murdered by guns" is not the way it is. It's this type of misrepresentation that I take issue with. But, as I said, you gave WWWTT a save. Too bad there is no such "save" regarding his claim that 900 Americans have been murdered by guns since the Conn. school shooting.

*Who also quickly backed off - this isn't going to be an issue, supported by "Republicans"

Edited January 26, 2013 by American Woman

[TimG]

And we know that not all Republicans are deranged wingnuts... but when a US politician says or does something this disgusting and offensive and repugnant, we don't have to ask what party they're from either.

Which is worse: a Republican politician that wants creationism taught in school or a Democratic politician that wants to piss away billions on windmills/high speed trains/leftie cause du jour?

Both are 'anti-science' in the sense that they ignore the best evidence that shows that their pet policies are dumb ideas.

Both are driven by ideology.

The difference is the Republican ideological obsessions generally will not have an effect the economy as a whole. Democratic obsessions risk destroying the economy with huge debts and unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses.

California is a case in point because they recently balanced their budget by increasing taxes on the rich yet instead of being grateful the Democratic governor is now using the balanced books as an excuse to push ahead with 100 billion in capital spending on high speed rail - a move that vindicates Republican claims that balancing budgets will higher taxes will only lead to more spending.

Edited January 26, 2013 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

As I said, all parties in both of our countries have their nutwings, and the extremists in any of them are no better or worse than the next. They are just extreme (ie: nutty) in different areas. Unfortunately, it appears as if most people are only able to see the nuts in the opposition - and then they make everything about the opposition instead of the issue.

[kimmy]

Interesting that WWWTT doesn't use that as his defense, eh? It appears as if he's been "saved by the bell," so to speak, since co-sponsors subsequently signed the bill*, which he obviously didn't know about himself. My criticism stands. From the info he had, he purposely misrepresented the situation from the knowledge he had -

I think you have WWWTT confused with Mighty AC, as it's Mighty AC who coined the headline you're objecting to.

Regardless, I really don't care whether he was aware of the co-sponsors, or whether he's been granted a "save" or what issue you may have with him or WWWTT.

My point is that your attempt to downplay this as "just one nut" is inaccurate.

(and I think anybody who assumes these are the only 10 Republicans in the New Mexico legislature who were aware of this bill before it was presented is pretty naive as well.)

*Who also quickly backed off - this isn't going to be an issue, supported by "Republicans"

They haven't backed off at all. They've updated the language of the bill to make it clear that the rape victim is not to be charged with evidence tampering. Which should get them off the hook for the most flagrant outrage in this bill, but in reality this bill was probably intended to target abortion providers all along, not rape victims. It's consistent with Republican strategies in other states where they've bypassed the whole issue of the right to choice, and simply made the regulations on abortion providers so onerous that abortion providers can't stay in business.

-k

[kimmy]

The difference is the Republican ideological obsessions generally will not have an effect the economy as a whole. Democratic obsessions risk destroying the economy with huge debts and unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses.

Laugh of the day there, Tim.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

.... It's consistent with Republican strategies in other states where they've bypassed the whole issue of the right to choice, and simply made the regulations on abortion providers so onerous that abortion providers can't stay in business.

Correct...as there is no "right to choice".

[Canuckistani]

TimG, on 26 January 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

The difference is the Republican ideological obsessions generally will not have an effect the economy as a whole. Democratic obsessions risk destroying the economy with huge debts and unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses.

Laugh of the day there, Tim.

-k

I have to get in on this one - it's a gut buster.