Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:
Did you guys know "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

No, but it is in the thesaurus under "Person who believes a Republican is proposing this law in good faith".

 Seaward wrote:
Did you guys know "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

Yeah, it's hilarious that Brown thinks no one is going to notice how fast she's back pedaling on this.

As far as I can tell, it is actually a sensible bill. But let's just take the HuffPo at face value and rage.

Speaking of gullible... was what you quoted off of Brown's home page, because the actual bill submitted... kind of lacks any mention of the mother at all. Take out the heading and you about a page of text.
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0206.pdf

*edit*
And the noxious part is still there. If the the intent is to punish the rapist, then what's the purpose of-

Tampering with evidence shall include procuring
or facilitating an abortion,

-because that's made immediately redundant by the following phrase which adds 'compelling or coercing' someone into getting an abortion.

Oh wow, without the first part yeah, that's disgusting.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Did you guys know "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

Yeah, it's hilarious that Brown thinks no one is going to notice how fast she's back pedaling on this.

As far as I can tell, it is actually a sensible bill. But let's just take the HuffPo at face value and rage.

Speaking of gullible... was what you quoted off of Brown's home page, because the actual bill submitted... kind of lacks any mention of the mother at all. Take out the heading and you about a page of text.

You realize that the page of text is almost completely made up of already existing law that is already on the book?

That is the way a bill works. The underlined part is the only new law being written here. Bills quote the already existing law thst is being chanded, including the actual changes being made (underlined is added, strikethrough is removed).

Those instructions are actually included in the PDF of the bill.

So yes, the bill only clarifies that people can be charged with evidence tampering if they try to force a woman to get rid of the evidence. It will be hard for a mother to rape herself and force herself to get rid of the evidence.

The 50 year old law is the same.

 d-usa wrote:
So yes, the bill only clarifies that people can be charged with evidence tampering if they try to force a woman to get rid of the evidence. It will be hard for a mother to rape herself and force herself to get rid of the evidence.

I don't think you're giving those dastardly conservatives enough credit.

Portugal Jones wrote:

As far as I can tell, it is actually a sensible bill. But let's just take the HuffPo at face value and rage.

Speaking of gullible... was what you quoted off of Brown's home page, because the actual bill submitted... kind of lacks any mention of the mother at all. Take out the heading and you about a page of text.
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0206.pdf

Let's start at gullible. People shouldn't use words they don't understand; in case I'm being too ambiguous I'm talking to you Portugal Jones. But speakig of benighted...I know that in this day and age of Wikipedia and electronic mail that critical reading skills are becoming nonexistant; you having gloriously trumpeted your personal lack of said skills I shall assist you.

 AustonT wrote:
I went to fire off a hateful missive as I often do to slowed jackasses who say stupid things. While on her webpage I took the oppourtunity to look at the tab with her bill. It reads somewhat differently than the one on the NM legislature page.
It can be found here.
http://cathrynnbrown.com/page.php?t=hb_206
In the description of the bill on her website it includes the line "Prohibiting the prosecution of the mother of the fetus"
Some creative editing has occurred and my question is did that occur before her bill was introduced or after and by whom. Having only my phone I have no way of answering that.

I know right? It's like I knew the text on the legislature page and the one on her website were different and asked the Dakka hivemind for help in determining why, now THAT'S gullible! Oh right...that's not what gullible means.
Welcome to the OT.

 AustonT wrote:

Let's start at gullible.

I think he might have gotten you and I confused, as I'm the one who first used 'gullible'. Which is strange, because your avatar is a 1950s-era photograph of a UFO and mine's an awesomesauce Spess Mehreen. Plus, I get baited into pointless circular aguments far more often than you.

That's not a UFO...

And I think people deliberately avoid baiting me due to my totally non-hostile approach to stupid arguments.

 d-usa wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Did you guys know "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

Yeah, it's hilarious that Brown thinks no one is going to notice how fast she's back pedaling on this.

As far as I can tell, it is actually a sensible bill. But let's just take the HuffPo at face value and rage.

Speaking of gullible... was what you quoted off of Brown's home page, because the actual bill submitted... kind of lacks any mention of the mother at all. Take out the heading and you about a page of text.

You realize that the page of text is almost completely made up of already existing law that is already on the book?

That is the way a bill works. The underlined part is the only new law being written here. Bills quote the already existing law thst is being chanded, including the actual changes being made (underlined is added, strikethrough is removed).

Those instructions are actually included in the PDF of the bill.

So yes, the bill only clarifies that people can be charged with evidence tampering if they try to force a woman to get rid of the evidence. It will be hard for a mother to rape herself and force herself to get rid of the evidence.

The 50 year old law is the same.

I just jumped into this thread after taking a break of all that facepalming... good find d-usa.

So... the bill's author is only doing this to drum up some history to show her constitutes of her "sterling" prolife background? Color me shocked! In other words... water is wet... move along.

 AustonT wrote:
That's not a UFO...

I'm pretty sure it's an MQ-5, but feth if I can tell for sure.

Thus, flying saucer.

I'm suprised you know that but yes it is an Mq-5B.

 AustonT wrote:
I'm suprised you know that but yes it is an Mq-5B.

I've seen a couple, and you're Army. Narrows it down.

That is really fethed up. It's an obvious closeted way of making abortion illegal.

No...

Just no.

The idiot that thought this was a good idea needs taking out and shooting.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
No...

Just no.

The idiot that thought this was a good idea needs taking out and shooting.

I know right? Who wants to get caught for incest or rape? Italian Pipesnake.

Huh, wasn't there just a big Republican retreat to talk about how to discipline the party? I guess they forgot to invite the State level Republicans.

Next time.

why, you can DNA test the fetus

the religious will always fight blindly for their beliefs

if only they put that much effort into things besides the byproduct of rapes, maybe something a bit more productive, like stopping rapists

Why are republicans stupid heartless idiots for clarifying that a rapist who forces his victim to have an abortion so that there will be no DNA evidence against him should go to jail?

And I am talking as somebody who is a pretty strong supporter of pro-choice laws who is tired of seing republicans come up with new and stupid ways to push their pro-life agenda.

This law does absolutely nothing to make abortions illegal. It doesn't make it illegal for pregnant rape victims to have an abortion. It doesn't even make new law. The law that makes it evidence tamperingn if you are forcing somebody to have an abortion is 50 years old.

Nobody actually reads bills anymore...

Everyone... Comprehend what D-USA has said!

You must pass the bill in order to read it!

Seriously, he's right... this is nothing more via Huffington to generate more site traffic.

Come on people, me and whembly don't agree on anything. ANYTHING! So let this be a sign that this is rage about nothing!

Appropriate because of your avatar:

So the new legislation only criminalizes the performance of abortions resulting from rape as the destruction of evidence, for the people performing abortions?

I'm left wondering how an un-aborted fetus can prove the presence, or absence of rape.

Or I was until Todd Akin.

As a wholly-unsurprising update, the legislator in question is going to "clarify the language to remove any ambiguity".

Lady, you should at least skim the bills that the lobbyists that pay you hand you.

 dogma wrote:
So the new legislation only criminalizes the performance of abortions resulting from rape as the destruction of evidence, for the people performing abortions?

I'm left wondering how an un-aborted fetus can prove the presence, or absence of rape.

Or I was until Todd Akin.

No, it doesn't.

It clarifies that it is a criminal act for a rapist to force a woman to have an abortion with the indent to destroy the fetus as evidence.

It doesn't make abortions a crime. Are you people even reading the one paragraph? It's not like its a 20 page bill to work through. It's one fething paragraph. And it's not even ambiguous.

 d-usa wrote:
No, it doesn't.

It clarifies that it is a criminal act for a rapist to force a woman to have an abortion with the indent to destroy the fetus as evidence.

It doesn't make abortions a crime. Are you people even reading the one paragraph? It's not like its a 20 page bill to work through. It's one fething paragraph. And it's not even ambiguous.

Dude, you better be careful. Another two, three posts trying to draw people out of misguided righteous indignation, and you'll be a "Dakka Conservative."

 d-usa wrote:

 dogma wrote:
So the new legislation only criminalizes the performance of abortions resulting from rape as the destruction of evidence, for the people performing abortions?

I'm left wondering how an un-aborted fetus can prove the presence, or absence of rape.

Or I was until Todd Akin.

No, it doesn't.

It clarifies that it is a criminal act for a rapist to force a woman to have an abortion with the indent to destroy the fetus as evidence.

It doesn't make abortions a crime. Are you people even reading the one paragraph? It's not like its a 20 page bill to work through. It's one fething paragraph. And it's not even ambiguous.

This is how lynch mobs get formed.

 d-usa wrote:

It doesn't make abortions a crime. Are you people even reading the one paragraph? It's not like its a 20 page bill to work through. It's one fething paragraph. And it's not even ambiguous.

It renders any relevant person, save the carrying woman, an accomplice. So yes, it criminalizes abortion and, as a bonus, any advice pertaining to an abortion.

If the doctor performs the abortion with the intent to destroy evidence, then he is performing a criminal act.

If somebody else is forcing the woman to have an abortion with the intent of destroying the evidence, then that person if performing a criminal act, and not the doctor that doesn't know what is going.

You have to prove that the doctor had intend to destroy evidence of a rape or incest. That little nugget is written in the law.

And after reading the paragraph again, it doesn't make it a crime to perform the abortion either.

Only to coerce (force) or to facilitate (make it easier) to have an abortion with the intend (which has to be proven in court) to destroy evidence.

Nothing in that law makes the doctor an accomplice unless he is doing it for free to help a buddy out.

 d-usa wrote:
If the doctor performs the abortion with the intent to destroy evidence, then he is performing a criminal act.

If the doctor aids and abets (acts as an accomplice) to the criminal offense, then he is liable; regardless of knowledge regarding circumstance. The same applies to any person who advises the victim to seek an abortion.

 d-usa wrote:

You have to prove that the doctor had intend to destroy evidence of a rape or incest. That little nugget is written in the law.

No, you don't.

Yes, you do. Per the new paragraph that they want to insert into the 50 year old law:

with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.

But feth it, live in your own reality. I am getting way to upset arguing with people on the Internet.