Raw Story: New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims With Jail Time

[HeluCopter29]

Apparently if I rape a chick and get her pregnant, I have a right to control if she get's an abortion or not. So now we'll just call it "tampering with evidence."

Bill was proposed by a woman too.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/2...ith-jail-time/

If you’re looking for evidence that the differences between men and women are greatly exaggerated, the fact that women are equally capable as men of mind-blowing misogyny should erase all doubt. New Mexico state Rep. Cathrynn Brown proved that this week by introducing a bill aimed at throwing rape victims in jail if they refuse to honor their rapist’s right to control their body by carrying his child. This sort of insult to rapists will not stand, so Brown, standing up bravely for rapists who want the suffering they’ve inflicted to carry on and on for their victims, has proposed banning abortion for rape victims on the phony grounds that it’s “tampering with evidence”.

[redskinss]

sounds like an episode of law and order svu

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called on the Republican Party to "stop being the stupid party."

[Corcaigh]

Thee has to be a fetus, otherwise, no rape?

[Barney B]

I guess it makes a kind of sense, if you strongly believe that the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother in all cases - you're saving innocent lives by any means necessary, goddammit!

Apparently, though, she doesn't believe it so strongly that she's willing to gamble her political career on this bill - she's already been cowed by the backlash, and has resorted to making **** up:

Cathrynn Brown wants to abort mission

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/cath...abort_mission/

But Brown’s clever ruse to redefine a woman’s constitutional right as criminal tampering didn’t go over very well, and as the bill made national headlines Thursday, Brown not so coincidentally removed her contact information from her legislature page. But her personal Web page, which greets visitors with a photo from the governor’s prayer breakfast, tells a tale of somebody who’s been trying to tweak the narrative. There’s a record of two now-deleted posts entered on Thursday evening, followed by a statement from Brown that reads, “This is the bill that I will introduce that protects women and girls from incest and other sex crimes: It makes it clear that the mother of the fetus would never be charged. This bill ensures the prosecution of the offender and protection of the victim.”

Man, that was fast. I guess a quick in and out is to be expected of someone who believes that if a woman has been raped once, she deserves to be raped twice.

[bird_1972]

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called on the Republican Party to "stop being the stupid party."

Looks like it's not working.

I'm hoping Republicans as we know them go the way of the Do-Do bird. Need to have an adult alternative to the Democratic party, not some circus side show.

[twa]

from what I have read it was intended to prosecute the rapists

no good deed ....carry on

[Barney B]

from what I have read it was intended to prosecute the rapists

no good deed ....carry on

Cause you can get lots of evidence from a baby that you can't get from an aborted fetus.

Like, after it's born, you can ask it who the father is.

[Larry]

from what I have read it was intended to prosecute the rapists

no good deed ....carry on

From what you have read, that was the false claim they were making, for the latest entry in the "look, everybody, I can be even more dingbat anti-abortion than all he other Republicans" competition.

[twa]

Cause you can get lots of evidence from a baby that you can't get from an aborted fetus.

Like, after it's born, you can ask it who the father is.

you don't think they save the evidence from abortions do you ?

I'm curious how you believe they would know it is a pregnancy from rape?

a minor obviously would be statutory rape,but if from incest there is no evidence collected if the father compels a abortion.
perhaps requiring samples from abortions on minors would be a better course

[Larry]

you don't think they save the evidence from abortions do you ?

I'm curious how you believe they would know it is a pregnancy from rape?

a minor obviously would be statutory rape,but if from incest there is no evidence collected if the father compels a abortion.
perhaps requiring samples from abortions on minors would be a better course

Ah, we've gone from discussing a law forbidding the woman from aborting, to discussing why it would be wrong for the man to compel one.

[Barney B]

you don't think they save the evidence from abortions do you ?

They don't? Well, they should, shouldn't they? Maybe, if your bill is sincerely "intended to prosecute the rapists", it should address this issue?

But this bill wasn't intended for that. It's an effort to force women to carry a fetus to full term, even if they've been raped. Is it too much to ask that If someone thinks that's a good idea, they should just say so?

I'm curious how you believe they would know it is a pregnancy from rape?

If a rape is alleged, then you can collect the evidence, would that work?

Do you really want to force a woman to carry a rapist's baby?

[twa]

Ah, we've gone from discussing a law forbidding the woman from aborting, to discussing why it would be wrong for the man to compel one.

have you read the submitted bill? (rhetorical question since you obviously have not)

the wording was poor,but the intent was not at the pregnant

---------- Post added January-27th-2013 at 11:31 AM ----------

If a rape is alleged, then you can collect the evidence, would that work?
?

in the case of a woman or minor under anothers control....obviously not
and yes it happens

No I would not force a woman to carry a rapists child,despite seeing it as her own as well

[KAOSkins]

the wording was poor...

Here's another example of "purposeful ambiguity" in a political document. Ironic that it challenges the Brits on a "paltry grievance" that mirrors a current favorite of the right wing.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ion_style.html

Second, as Thomas Hutchinson complained, the charges were "most wickedly presented to cast reproach upon the King." Consider, for example, grievance 10: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." The language is Biblical and conjures up Old Testament images of "swarms" of flies and locusts covering the face of the earth, "so that the land was darkened," and devouring all they found until "there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field" (Exodus 10:14-15). It also recalls the denunciation, in Psalms 53:4, of "the workers of iniquity . . . who eat up my people as they eat bread," and the prophecy of Deuteronomy 28:51 that an enemy nation "shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee." For some readers the religious connotations may have been enhanced by "substance," which was used in theological discourse to signify "the Essence or Substance of the Godhead" and to describe the Holy Eucharist, in which Christ had "coupled the substance of his flesh and the substance of bread together, so we should receive both."(22)

From the revolutionaries' view, however, the primary advantage of the wording of charge 10 was probably its purposeful ambiguity. The "multitude of New Offices" referred to the customs posts that had been created in the 1760s to control colonial smuggling. The "swarms of Officers" that were purportedly eating out the substance of the colonies' three million people numbered about fifty in the entire continent. But Congress could hardly assail George III as a tyrant for appointing a few dozen men to enforce the laws against smuggling, so it clothed the charge in vague, evocative imagery that gave significance and emotional resonance to what otherwise might have seemed a rather paltry grievance.(23)

[Barney B]

in the case of a woman or minor under anothers control....obviously not

So maybe what's needed is a bill to address this problem? 'Cause if Cathrynn Brown's bill was really intended as anything more than political grandstanding, then surely she could write something a little more reasonable, and stand a realistic chance of actually helping to prosecute the rapists.

No I would not force a woman to carry a rapists child,despite seeing it as her own as well

No, wait.