Republicans Seek To Criminalize Post Rape Abortion

[Shady]

and simply made the regulations on abortion providers so onerous that abortion providers can't stay in business.

-k

Yes, similar to what Democrats have done to the coal industry.and other businesses they don't approve of.

[Guest American Woman]

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

You're right, I did mix them up; it was Mighty AC who didn't use that as his defense, so he was "saved by the bell," so to speak.

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.

I have no issue with either of them. I do have an issue with people falsely presenting issues. I would think that would have been clear.

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

Yes, it's 10 "nuts." In one state. Out of how many Republicans in the U.S.? The fact is, it is not "Republicans" who tried to "seek to criminalize post rape abortion" the way it's being presented - this is not a Republican party stance. It's not garnered support from the party, and has already been pointed out, she and the co-sponsors have all backed off.

(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.)

And I think anyone who equates "aware of" with "support" is misinformed, to put it politely.

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.

They have completely backed off. You yourself state that the updated language makes it clear that the rape victim won't be charged.

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.

Whatever the intent, it's original version is no longer on the table and never had the support of "Republicans." I can understand the outrage directed towards this bill, it's well deserved, but making it about "Republicans" is what I take issue with. Seems as if so many issues become 'partisan,' about the party of the person(s) involved rather than the issue.

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.

It's hardly "consistent" with "Republican strategies" in other states; there has been nothing similar to this bill - which was off the wall.

Edited January 26, 2013 by American Woman

[Canuckistani]

I fail to see the diff between this bill's sponsors and "women who are legitimately raped don't get pregnant" republicans and whatever other knee slapper came out during the election. It's not all Republicans, we know there are some who are socially liberal, but it's a large number of Republicans all over the US who believe this sort of crap, so it's not the ten involved in this bill either.

[TimG]

Laugh of the day there, Tim.

So explain how teaching creationism in schools or opposing abortion is going to mess up the economy?

[Guest American Woman]

I fail to see the diff between this bill's sponsors and "women who are legitimately raped don't get pregnant" republicans and whatever other knee slapper came out during the election. It's not all Republicans, we know there are some who are socially liberal, but it's a large number of Republicans all over the US who believe this sort of crap, so it's not the ten involved in this bill either.

So just how many "'women who are legitimately raped don't get pregnant' republicans" are there?

[kimmy]

So explain how teaching creationism in schools or opposing abortion is going to mess up the economy?

You didn't specify teaching creationism or opposing abortion, you said "Republican ideological obsessions", and if you don't recognize the damage done by Republican obsessions like deregulation and cutting taxes, you must have slept through Bush's entire 2nd term.

-k

[TimG]

if you don't recognize the damage done by Republican obsessions like deregulation and cutting taxes, you must have slept through Bush's entire 2nd term.

Except the bank meltdowns problems weren't caused by "republican ideological" obsessions. The were caused by as much by democrats like Barney Frank with their own ideological obessions who opposed reforms to Fanny/Freddie in 2003. Edited January 26, 2013 by TimG

[kimmy]

They have completely backed off. You yourself state that the updated language makes it clear that the rape victim won't be charged.

They have clarified that the rape victim would not be charged, but post-rape abortion will remain criminal evidence tampering. They old wording told a rape victim that if she got an abortion, she and her doctor would be charged with destroying evidence. The new wording tell the rape victim that if she gets an abortion, her doctor will be charged with destroying evidence. Big whoop. Either way, the rape victim can't legally get an abortion in New Mexico.

Whatever the intent, it's original version is no longer on the table and never had the support of "Republicans." I can understand the outrage directed towards this bill, it's well deserved, but making it about "Republicans" is what I take issue with. Seems as if so many issues become 'partisan,' about the party of the person(s) involved rather than the issue.

The Republican Party has become so thoroughly involved with the pro-life movement that this has, in effect, become a partisan issue. You can look at many Republican controlled states and find measures in progress to make abortions difficult to obtain.

It's hardly "consistent" with "Republican strategies" in other states; there has been nothing similar to this bill - which was off the wall.

Nothing as outrageously offensive as the original bill, but certainly there's a strategy of making abortion inaccessible by putting untenable financial and legal burdens on abortion providers. The New Mexico bill, in its updated form, remains just one more potential legal landmine for abortion providers.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

They have clarified that the rape victim would not be charged, but post-rape abortion will remain criminal evidence tampering.

No, it won't; only if it is A. "with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another" or B. "with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," and I seriously doubt if that would be the intent of a post-rape abortion.

They old wording told a rape victim that if she got an abortion, she and her doctor would be charged with destroying evidence. The new wording tell the rape victim that if she gets an abortion, her doctor will be charged with destroying evidence. Big whoop. Either way, the rape victim can't legally get an abortion in New Mexico.

Wrong. I doubt that the intent of the doctor would be as stated above.

The Republican Party has become so thoroughly involved with the pro-life movement that this has, in effect, become a partisan issue. You can look at many Republican controlled states and find measures in progress to make abortions difficult to obtain.

"Abortion" and "criminal evidence" are two very different things. I have seen no support for this bill coming out of the Republican party. What I've seen is the backing down of the legislator who introduced it; a re-writing of the bill - which does not say what you claim it does.

Nothing as outrageously offensive as the original bill, but certainly there's a strategy of making abortion inaccessible by putting untenable financial and legal burdens on abortion providers. The New Mexico bill, in its updated form, remains just one more potential legal landmine for abortion providers.

Potential?

This reminds me of those opposing gay marriage who say allowing it will open the door for people to marry a sheep, or some such nonsense. The bill will never see the light of day, that's a given, but it's not a partisan issue. There has been no support from the Republican party for the bill - there hasn't been an outcry of support by Republicans for the bill - which again, was very quickly re-written.

Edited January 26, 2013 by American Woman

[WWWTT]

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"

Don't be so quick to assume what I may or may not know!

republican/conservative, same crap,different pile

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Yes, similar to what Democrats have done to the coal industry.and other businesses they don't approve of.

It's patently absurd to compare the coal industry to women's bodies.

[cybercoma]

Don't be so quick to assume what I may or may not know!

WWWTT

Pretty ironic coming from the poster that whines the loudest, "DON'T SPEAK FOR ME" whenever anyone addresses her arguments.

[Guest American Woman]

Don't be so quick to assume what I may or may not know!

republican/conservative, same crap,different pile.

I'm not assuming anything. It's a fact that 900 people haven't been murdered by guns in America since the Conn. school shooting. It's also a fact that members of the Conservative party in Canada are not Republicans.

[waldo]

It's a fact that 900 people haven't been murdered by guns in America since the Conn. school shooting.

in any case, this 'Gun-death tally, "How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?" is a sobering comment on gun violence in your country. The graphic is fully interactive to check details/sources of each death... whether murder, or not. Clearly, it's not a complete representation... as of Friday, 2 days ago, at least 1243 deaths.

[Guest American Woman]

in any case, this 'Gun-death tally, "How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?" is a sobering comment on gun violence in your country. The graphic is fully interactive to check details/sources of each death... whether murder, or not. Clearly, it's not a complete representation... as of Friday, 2 days ago, at least 1243 deaths.

It sure is interactive, but since I'm not about to look into 1243 deaths individually, I'll refer to the average regarding suicide - approx. 2/3. So how many suicides in Canada during that time period?

But let's take a look at some stats regarding gun deaths in the U.S.:

In 2011, the latest figure available from the Centers for Disease Control,

Accidental discharge 851

Suicide 19,766

Homicide 11,101

Undetermined Intent 222

Total: At least 31940 people died from gun injuries in 2011.

To get the daily statistics, let's divide 31,940 by 356. That would equal 89.7 gun deaths per day.

How many days have passed since the Conn. school shooting and the posting of your stats? Answer: 41

So let's take 41 and multiply it by 89.7 to see if 1,243 deaths is above the norm, the norm, or below the norm; 41 x 89.7 = 3,677.7

Now let's compare that answer with the reality - and we see that gun deaths are way down since the Conn. school shooting. 1,243 in 41 days compared to 3,677.7 during a 41 day time frame in 2011. Good news!

And again, approximately 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides - so how many suicide in Canada during that time? Let me guess. No one is keeping track; no one is that concerned over the number. But I will remind you that Canada's suicide rates are not lower than the States'.

------------------------

Edited to emphasize that the figures are for total gun deaths, including suicides and accidental shootings, not the number of murders by gun - as WWWTT presented it.

Edited January 27, 2013 by American Woman

[msj]

It sure is interactive, but since I'm not about to look into 1243 deaths individually, I'll refer to the average regarding suicide - approx. 2/3. So how many suicides in Canada during that time period?

But let's take a look at some stats regarding gun deaths in the U.S.:

In 2011, the latest figure available from the Centers for Disease Control,

Accidental discharge 851

Suicide 19,766

Homicide 11,101

Undetermined Intent 222

Total: At least 31940 people died from gun injuries in 2011.

To get the daily statistics, let's divide 31,940 by 356. That would equal 89.7 gun deaths per day.

How many days have passed since the Conn. school shooting and the posting of your stats? Answer: 41

So let's take 41 and multiply it by 89.7 to see if 1,243 deaths is above the norm, the norm, or below the norm; 41 x 89.7 = 3,677.7

Now let's compare that answer with the reality - and we see that gun deaths are way down since the Conn. school shooting. 1,243 in 41 days compared to 3,677.7 during a 41 day time frame in 2011. Good news!

And again, approximately 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides - so how many suicide in Canada during that time? Let me guess. No one is keeping track; no one is that concerned over the number. But I will remind you that Canada's suicide rates are not lower than the States'.

------------------------

Edited to emphasize that the figures are for total gun deaths, including suicides and accidental shootings, not the number of murders by gun - as WWWTT presented it.

The problem I have with the link provided is that it is not clear if it means murders by gun or all gun deaths.

I selected a number of people in the graphic and looked at the news source and came up with stories about murders rather than suicides.

So, it would be nice if the source provided was better at providing definitions of what they are showing - all gun deaths or only murders by guns?

When I look at the math I notice that 1,243 deaths from murder by guns would be pretty close to the average based on 2011 statistics.

11,101/365days *41 days = 1,246.

So, I'm assuming that the linked story really means murders by gun rather than all deaths by guns since the Newtown massacre.

We will likely have to wait and see what the January statistics say over the next few weeks to see if there has been good news or if this is yet another mix up over lack of definitions/details provided by a source.

Edited January 27, 2013 by msj

[Canuckistani]

Slate, et al don't have exhaustive figures here - on their website they ask people to write in if they know of any gun deaths in their community. But they do seem to be talking about all gun deaths, not just homicides. CDC estimates about 30 gun homicides a day. There is no reason to assume this has gone down. So Obama was quite right to say there were 900 gun homicides in the first month after Sandyhook. Just that the data isn't in yet. It might turn out there were only 899 gun homicides in that first month, which will of course get the usual suspects to chortle with glee how gun homicides are actually down in the US, and besides, Canada does it toooooooooooooooooooooo.

[msj]

Given that the Slate link is under the section "Home:Crime:Murder, Theft, and other wickedness" and that using 2011 averages would get us to ~1,243 murders since the Newtown massacre I think it is safe to say that the Slate article is referring to murders and gun deaths related to committing a crime (for example, I clicked on one source and the police had shot some guy dead).

So, no, I don't think they are talking about all gun deaths.

But perhaps AW is doing math that makes Republicans feel better.

At least Slate has put it up for us - we can go and check the sources and read the stories.

Given the amount of suicides by guns (almost 2 out of 3) I would have expected to have come across at least 13 stories of suicide by death but I came up with 0 out of 20 (unless one wants to claim that the guy who got shot by police was really a suicide which is possible - then it's 1 out of 20 stories).

So, once again, the Slate article is not referring to all gun deaths.

Edited January 27, 2013 by msj

[Canuckistani]

http://news.national...-since-newtown/ Thats a graphic of the slate data. If you look at the examples given, they include accidental shootings. As the article says, suicides typically go unreported. So it includes all deaths they know about, but isn't going to include many suicides.

The better metric is the 30 gun homicides a day given by the CDC - no reason that's changed. That's where the 900 figure comes from.

But if it makes AW better to quibble about the figures, as if magically after Sandyhook gun homicides drastically declined, let her have her illusion. It's tough enough living in the US as it is, without having to face reality. You know, like Col. Jessep said.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Canuckistani

[msj]

http://news.national...-since-newtown/ Thats a graphic of the slate data. If you look at the examples given, they include accidental shootings. As the article says, suicides typically go unreported. So it includes all deaths they know about, but isn't going to include many suicides.

Your link is really no better than the one provided. It pretty much states the same thing.

Perhaps I should look at a bigger sample of the sources but the ones I selected seem to indicate that the Slate article is dealing primarily with gun murders.

Which probably shouldn't be a surprise since murders tend to be news whereas accidents and suicides not so much.

So we are clearly not looking at all gun deaths so you are right about AW's latest delusion.

Must be Republican math syndrome.

[Guest American Woman]

The problem I have with the link provided is that it is not clear if it means murders by gun or all gun deaths.

It clearly says "gun deaths." I checked out a couple of the lone "dots" and this is what I found:

If you click on Tucson, for example, you will see both Ashley Hicks and Josesph Leroy Francis. Both say "killed in Tucson," but Joseph Francis killed Ashley Hicks - and then killed himself.

• A Tucson woman was shot and killed Thursday night by a man against whom she had a restraining order.
  
• After shooting Hicks, Joseph Leroy Francis, 23, drove to the the Marana home of the woman’s parents. Francis told them he killed their daughter, and left, police said.
  
• The parents reported the encounter to the Marana Police Department and “their investigation led them to the suspect’s home in the 2800 block of West Curtis Road,” Widmer said. “Upon Marana police arrival, they heard a single gun shot. They found our suspect in the driveway of the residence with what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
  

Click on Aztec, NM and you find one death: Byron Boyd

Killed in Aztec, NM

Killed on 12/24/2012

Age: 39

Authorities say a registered sex offender wanted on a probation violation is dead after a nearly eight-hour barricade situation near the northwestern New Mexico city of Aztec.

San Juan County Sheriff's officials say 39-year-old Byron Boyd fatally shot himself Monday night inside a cinder-block outbuilding.

Click on North Mankato, MN, and you see one death by gun: Lloyd Hodgson Tschohl

Killed in North Mankato, MN

Killed on 1/17/2013

Age: 83

Look at his obituary, and there's nothing about the cause of death, which is generally the case in a suicide.

Clicking on Sidney, NE, we see: Donald Vizina

Killed in Sidney, NE

The shooting death of a Sidney man Saturday evening is being called an accident.

Click on Casper, WY and you find: Larry Clapp

Killed in Casper, WY

Killed on 1/7/2013

Age: 66

A former Casper mayor and state legislator facing felony child pornography charges has been found dead.

Natrona County Coroner Connie Jacobson says 66-year-old Larry Clapp died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

It's all gun deaths, not just murders.

[kimmy]

No, it won't; only if it is A. "with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another" or B. "with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," and I seriously doubt if that would be the intent of a post-rape abortion.

The original bill contained the same language regarding intent, but nobody was convinced that it protected the rape victim from prosecution. That's because...

Wrong. I doubt that the intent of the doctor would be as stated above.

...if the abortion provider has been informed that the pregnancy is a result of rape, and this new law declares that the fetus is evidence in a criminal investigation, then the abortion provider will by default be guilty of intentionally destroying evidence. There will be a case to be made for prosecutors with an axe to grind to take to court if they wish.

Perhaps it's your view that only a really malicious prosecutor would charge an abortion provider in those circumstances, but as we've seen in the Aaron Swartz case, it's mistake to assume that prosecutors will use their discretion with benevolence.

"Abortion" and "criminal evidence" are two very different things. I have seen no support for this bill coming out of the Republican party. What I've seen is the backing down of the legislator who introduced it; a re-writing of the bill - which does not say what you claim it does.

If you really think this bill is about preserving criminal evidence, I think you're naive. The whole underlying idea that a fetus must be brought to term to be viable DNA evidence at a rape trial is blatantly false from square one.

You can believe that Mrs Brown is so ignorant and stupid that she didn't realize genetic material from an aborted fetus would be completely valid evidence. Or you can believe that she's not ignorant and stupid, and that this bill has motivation beyond the stated goal of "getting tough on rapists". You can believe what you wish, but given that she had a successful career in law before her political career, I would not assume her to be stupid.

Potential?

This reminds me of those opposing gay marriage who say allowing it will open the door for people to marry a sheep, or some such nonsense.

That's an inane slippery slope. The prosecution of an abortion provider under this bill isn't an inane slippery slope, it's a foreseeable result of this bill. There's a big difference.

This is a potential legal landmine for an abortion provider in New Mexico, not much different from legal landmines that other Republican-controlled states have been laying down for abortion providers.

The bill will never see the light of day, that's a given, but it's not a partisan issue. There has been no support from the Republican party for the bill -

There was, as already pointed out.

there hasn't been an outcry of support by Republicans for the bill - which again, was very quickly re-written.

That they have not flocked to defend the bill in wake of the public outrage over just shows that they realize what a gigantic public relations disaster this enormous brain-fart has been.

-k

[msj]

It clearly says "gun deaths." I checked out a couple of the lone "dots" and this is what I found:

It's all gun deaths, not just murders.

So your sample was better than mine.

As I have already stated, I don't think it is all gun deaths nor do I think it is just murders from guns.

It is anecdotal, at best, and we will have to wait for the real statistics to come in before we can celebrate American exceptionalism regressing towards the OECD norm.

But hey, if US deaths from guns have gone down by 2/3's then congrats!

For me, this doesn't pass the smell test and I expect, by the time 2013 is finished, that US deaths from guns will be roughly in line with prior years.

That is, I won't be surprised if 2013 shows homicides from guns to be in the range of 9/10/11/12 thousand range and total gun deaths to be around the 30,000 mark.

Oh, but if you want to feel better and believe that the gun death rate has declined by 2/3's then by all means keep practicing that Republican math that you do to make yourself feel better.

Edited January 27, 2013 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, but if you want to feel better and believe that the gun death rate has declined by 2/3's then by all means keep practicing that Republican math that you do to make yourself feel better.

So Obama is speaking in "Republican math" now? back at'cha.

I hate to break it to you, but the stats aren't being put out there to show how much better things are - they are being put out there for shock value. It sucks when someone comes along and actually does the math. Unless you think WWWTT and Waldo were putting the numbers out there because they are better than in the past? - and they want to point that out?

At any rate, if I'm expected to believe the numbers when they are being presented as how bad things are in the U.S., then I will accept them when they show the opposite. You think there's any reason todo otherwise? That's a rhetorical question, fyi.....

[waldo]

in any case, this 'Gun-death tally, "How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?" is a sobering comment on gun violence in your country. The graphic is fully interactive to check details/sources of each death... whether murder, or not. Clearly, it's not a complete representation... as of Friday, 2 days ago, at least 1243 deaths.

It sure is interactive, but since I'm not about to look into 1243 deaths individually, I'll refer to the average regarding suicide - approx. 2/3. So how many suicides in Canada during that time period? But let's take a look at some stats regarding gun deaths in the U.S.:......................

To get the daily statistics, let's...................................

Now let's compare that answer with the reality - and we see that gun deaths are way down since the Conn. school shooting. 1,243 in 41 days compared to 3,677.7 during a 41 day time frame in 2011. Good news!

And again, approximately 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides - so how many suicide in Canada during that time? Let me guess. No one is keeping track; no one is that concerned over the number. But I will remind you that Canada's suicide rates are not lower than the States'.

wow! That's some math... in all your definitive summation, it's too bad you didn't take the time to actually read my post, or the single paragraph description at the linked reference page. You know, my statements and the linked reference that pointedly speak to "gun deaths"... "whether murder, or not"... where the bolded link includes "killed by guns"... where I speak to the representation providing a sobering comment on "gun violence". All these offered a clear delineation between, 'gun related deaths', over, 'murder by guns'. No pointed reference is made to murder by guns in anything I stated, or in anything the linked reference includes.

but it gets better when you ignore the foundation and methodology of the initiative. Apparently you're not familiar with the term 'crowdsourced'. Apparently in your haste to take math liberties you couldn't be bothered to read my comment stating, "Clearly, it's not a complete representation"... which is simply taken in association with the comment on the linked reference page stating, "This data is necessarily incomplete"... which is linked as well, providing more details on the project initiative. You can blaze away with ridiculous math, but you can't be bothered to actually read!

as described, as it appears no organization actively monitors gun deaths in the U.S., a guy... one person... started to track related deaths, moving to a reliance on a twitter feed allowing anyone to report and provide supporting details. And then Slate got on board creating/hosting a representative interactive graphic. Obviously, it's not comprehensive... but, apparently, it's better than anything being done; i.e., better than nothing! Of course, all of this is explained for anyone who might take the time to... read! But clearly, that didn't stop you from your silly math exercise and your unfounded (ridiculous) accompanying summation/conclusion.

your continued over emphasis on suicide is bizarre. Is there a particular reason you feel a need to diminish a gun related death if it associates with a suicide? In any case, the general practice media organizations follow in even reporting suicides, seems to be, that a gun related suicide is only reported in association with a murder. And only since you seem to keep (incorrectly) repeating a comment that Canada has a higher suicide rate than the United States, I'll bother to address your ongoing wrong statement... but really, we had a whole lengthy thread on this single topic of comparative country suicide, with an outcome that doesn't match your statement. For what it's worth, here's a 2011 OECD comparative graphic... it's presentation doesn't agree with your continued repeating of your incorrect statement: