New Mexico Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R) has introduced House Bill 206, a bill that would make it a crime a rape victim to get an abortion as destruction of evidence of a crime. Brown is a lawyer and a member of the judiciary committee. She is also an ardent pro-life legislator who has made eliminating abortion (and “debunking” global warming) a mission. and, after a national outcry, says that the bill was poorly drafted will be changed to address the public concerns.
The bill below states “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.” As a third-degree felony, a rape victim could be subject to three years in jail. Fortunately, it also happens to be facially unconstitutional.
After her introduction of the bill making a fetus “evidence” of a rape, Brown found herself the subject of national outcry. She eventually issued a statements claiming that the bill was poorly drafted and that her intent was not to criminally charge rape victims. That is a bit hard to understand given the shortness and clarity of the bill. It is hard to miss that “procuring or facilitating an abortion” would include rape victims, particularly for a lawyer. It is also hard to see how anyone with a JD would not see this bill as blatantly unconstitutional but Brown got various colleagues to co-sponsor the bill.
Brown now blames “a drafting error” and says that she will amend the law “to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear.” Yet, she says that criminalizing such abortions is “solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist — not the victim — would be charged with tampering of evidence.” Many pro-life advocates have long objected to exceptions for rape and incest in allowing abortions.
It is not clear why this bill is needed since the individual is subject to the higher penalty of rape and such rape would still have to be proven to establish an effort to compel or coerce a rape victims into having an abortion. There are an array of other laws that can also be used in such a circumstances based on the threats or coercion against a victim. That makes the intent of the law even more suspect.
In the end, Brown appears content to say that she is merely a legal illiterate rather than a legal extremist. A curious defense for a lawyer and a judiciary committee member.
Here is the statute: HB0206
Source: ABC
I love New Mexico and its people. However, it has acquired its share of right-wing ideologues. What I find particularly disturbing, however, is the increasing tendency of state legislatures across the country to propose blatantly unconstitutional laws. It is a virtual epidemic.
The fact that this woman even thought that such a law was appropriate is outrageous. Unfortunately, she is the tip of the right wing Christian community that sees women as things to be controled and used by men. As to the fact that this was proposed by a woman, we have seen this type of conduct in the past coming from women who agree with and support the patriarchia belief that women are to be seen and not heard. They always explain their actions by saying they are special, specially chosen to be the voice crying in the dessert. I would say that this woman is special alright and not in a good way.
Is this one of the reformed republicans we have been hearing so much about?
Bobby Jindal pleaded for his fellow republicans to stop being “the party of stupid.”
Perhaps the message has not made it to some of the reformed challenged areas of republicandom.
nick, This woman is not really representative of the state and maybe not even of her district. You are right about the food.
I just drove through the great state of NM and this was in the news. As w/ all 50 states, the people have more sense than their pols. NM is in my top 5 states for food.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/22/169059701/we-have-no-choice-a-story-of-the-texas-sonogram-law And from the state that has a republican governor and legislature………….
The bill is unlikely to pass, as Democrats have a majority in both chambers of New Mexico’s state legislature. Just more of the GOP war on women…..
EastBroadwayLong Beach
1, January 25, 2013 at 7:24 am
What a low-life piece of crap…. working against her own kind.
———————–
yes, homo-sapiens….
Oh, and by the way, Cathrynn Brown is a disgusting excuse for a human being, but hey, what do we think our Judiciary Committee is composed of anyway?
This here is a pedophile victim production support law.
Guy rapes a woman to get her pregnant. She’s not allowed to abort the foetus. She claims it was rape and he said she begged him so he’s not charged or, if he is charged, he pays a good defense lawyer to emphasize enough reasonable doubt that he does at least as well as Alleged Rapist Kenneth Smith. Then, when the baby is born, he sues for custody because the mother is already known to be (a) a liar and perjuror and (b) a would-be baby-killer. He probably gets a restraining order against the mom leaving town and he gets custody the minute the baby is born. He gets all kinds of sympathy for having to raise the baby himself so naturally lots of women are willing to become his next girlfriend and help him take care of the poor little thing. Mom can’t have visitation (she’s dangerous to the baby, remember?) but she has to pay child support. The kid is then in dad’s sole care, custody and control and when the kid reaches dad’s preferred age, if his preferred age is high enough for HER to get pregnant and bear him the next generation of victims, he’ll produce another few victims through her uterus. This is the future (if it isn’t already the present); get used to it.
Pregnant American women need to figure out their options and KEEP THEIR PASSPORTS HANDY AT ALL TIMES.
I don’t know about this morning…..I woke up to find a bunch of news about the Repuglican gerrymandering in broad daylight and patting each other on the backs as if this level of politicking isn’t dirty…..hearing that filibuster reform had been busted…now hearing an actual woman (supposedly) crass enough to ignore the recipient of criminal assault and social murder in a bill designed to promote the effect of that crime …. there a millions of babies in the world who NEED to be welcomed….THEY ARE ALREADY HERE YOU IGNORANT COW (sorry bovinitians…)….maybe rape promoters could someday trade their misogyny for reality, compassion and love instead of brutality, hunger games and hate.
EVOLVE already!!!!!!!
OOPs …. New Mexico
The Hot Arizona sun does strange things to people. This Lady needs to find some shade.
It think there could be difficulties with using a baby as court evidence in a rape trial.
Chain of custody?
You just can’t have evidence walking around the place. The woman would need to be kept under supervision at all times – presumably in a special evidence locker.
Perhaps a full term of evidence custody might be OTT, particularly for the very early months. It would definitly be required towards the end, just in case of an early birth.
Police would also need to be in attendance at a birth so that the evidence could be bagged and stored.
Mespo,
That seems to be the only ones crazy enough to run for office….
P Smith,
Ouch…. And is that why the cartoon was moved to the editorial pages in a large number of newspapers…
I love crazy people – just not in office.
According to Cathrynn Brown, if she were to go driving while intoxicated and crashed her car, the paramedics shouldnn’t remove her to a hospital and treat her until the police have done a sobriety test (i.e. she has to be awake and able to walk or touch her nose, etc.). Putting her in an ambulance and letting her be operated on by doctors (and sobering up during the hours of surgery) would be “destruction of evidence”. If she dies at the scene, it’s her problem.
Or, doctors could do a blood test at the hospital while operating and confirm she was driving drunk, *and* she wouldn’t be denied (or delayed in getting) life-saving treatment…very much the same way that doctors can take swabs from rape victims or from aborted feotuses without subjecting the victim to further trauma.
Back in the 1980s, in a Doonesbury cartoon a right wing speaker referred to a woman who had an abortion as a “murderess”. The rightwingnuts in the US got touchy about it, saying it was an “unfair portrayal” of the “anti-abortion” movement (read: anti-woman, anti-choice). What Trudeau wrote in jest has come to be open dialogue of the wingnuts.
Apparently she is not fit to be an attorney nor chair of the judiciary. But probably nothing will happen as she is currently serving…. But would you want an Orly wanna bee….
If I recall yesterday, Elaine posted this on the correction site…
What a low-life piece of crap…. working against her own kind. Who thought this up, a priest, more than likely… right after he finished raping a child.