Because that would be “tampering with evidence.”
You can’t make this shit up.
She’s claiming the law is being ‘misrepresented’. I dunno. I guess I can see how she’s saying it’s only applying to those trying to force an abortion on someone. But it kinda can also read as applying to those who are voluntarily trying to get an abortion after rape/incest. In this case, I think it’s just bad wording. Though, I’m not familiar with the woman and her record, so I can’t say if her ‘bad wording’ was intentional or not.
Just based on the quote in the OP, it certainly does sound like its being misrepresented, at least if “intent to destroy evidence” is a required component. I can see this applying to:
A) female teachers who rape their students, or
B) fathers who rape their daughters.
In the first case, though, intent would be hard to prove; she could always just claim that she didn’t want the baby for some other reason. In the second case, I’m not sure why you couldn’t just charge the father with rape. Was there some high profile case where someone coerced his victim into getting an abortion and then used a lack of evidence to beat a rape charge?
That is fucking retarded. Abortions should never be illegal, especially if it is caused by sex against her will.
An aborted fetus, if preserved, is just as good as a full-term baby for DNA-evidence purposes.
Well, let’s see:
However:
That wording is broad enough to cover a man who bullies a woman into getting an abortion, and a woman who does it on her own initiative, and the doctor who performs the procedure in either case. The only loophole is the requirement of “intent to destroy evidence” – which, however, well could apply to the woman in some circumstances, e.g., she’s getting an abortion because she wants no one to know she got pregnant – not at all uncommon, is that, even with rape/incest victims?
Does anyone believe for a second that their motivation is concern for the rape victim?
There are people who see an issue as so evil that they’ll take any tactic to oppose it. In this case it’s rape, in other cases it’s gun control or gay marriage or interracial dating at the local roller rink.
It’s a stupid law, horribly drafted and rather obviously motivated by opposition to abortion rather than any attempt to address a legitimate concern of government.
And artfully displayed as a centrepiece, lends an air of elegance and sophistication to any dinner party.
This bill is absurd. Women can’t get pregnant if they are legitimately raped.
Show’s over, folks. TriPolar just won the thread.
In this case it’s abortion.
Kind of like overturning the first amendment n the grounds that it may contradict with the fifth.
I just now (Jan. 27) saw this (incoherently written) article on Yahoo! news, apparently from a few days ago.
Never mind that the article itself is incomprehensible (don’t waste any electrons clicking on it) (or maybe my browser just garbled it?) – Of interest is this user comment:
Whenever the issue of abortion after rape comes up, I remember the lesbian I knew who had to face the decision of a pregnancy-by-rape. She decided to have the baby and raise it with her partner.
I told her to ask some anti-abortion types what they thought she should do?
Their responses to a person were “Have the child and give it to a real family.”
How freaking bogus, just save the damned conceptus after it is extracted, the whole thing is a DNA sample…
But it’s not really about that. Much like the trans vaginal ultra sound legislation. They cannot make abortion illegal so instead they create laws that make it difficult, punitive, or confusing.
It’s pretty shameful, but thus far seems to be a tactic that’s working for the Right. I believe you’ll see much more of the same, in future for that very reason.
You mean politicians will do whatever they think that will get them re-relected? Fucking shocking! :eek:
Senegoid, thanks for sharing that rape level comment. It inspired me to put it into an official infographic.
