A (Double) Dose of Stupid v84

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

A New Mexico State Representative introduces a bill that treats the unborn as “evidence”, and the left loses what little mind it has left

New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown presented House bill 206 which calls for treating any forced or coerced abortion as a criminal evidence tampering. From the bill:

“30-22-5. TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE.–

A. Tampering with evidence consists of destroying, changing, hiding, placing or fabricating any physical evidence with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.

B. 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.

The bolds are mine, and it appears they need to be pointed out because none of the liberals and feminists going bananas over this seem to understand that part. Granted, laws are not written in common language. They are often written to be interpreted different ways. Yet it is clear from the language that the law is intended to punish those who force female rape victims to get abortions, not the victims themselves.

Any basic reading of the law would make that obvious, but that would work against the left’s tendency to overreact to anyone who does not support their views. Of course, the last six months have featured a number of Republican politicians saying stupid things about female rape and abortion. That would explain part of the reaction, however, that does not mean liberals should jump to conclusions like this:

Democratic Party of New Mexico Chairman Javier Gonzales called the bill an “atrocious piece of legislation.”

“This bill is wrong and should never see the light of day in any legislature in this country, let alone New Mexico,” Gonzales said. “The war on women in America has to stop. No woman should ever be forced to carry a child for ‘evidence,’ plain and simple.”

Again, that is not what the bill says. At all. Not even remotely close to what it says. There is nothing in the proposed law that says anything about forcing anyone to carry a child “for evidence”. Plain and simple, that is just a strawman that the left is using to attack a bill they would likely support if any feminist or Democrat proposed it.

The left has a problem with abortion, and it is that they cannot get around the morality issue that prompts most people not to support the act. Their only method of dealing with this is playing to people’s emotions by treating women as victims. Any effort to treat this complex issue with the nuance it deserves results in the above head spinning.

That brings us to the real problem with the bill: how would the state know who was coerced or forced to have an abortion? Assuming the female does not mention it, on what grounds would the state have to assume coercion or forced was used? And aside from cases dealing with minors and those in which the accused denied having sex with the accuser, how would the unborn child be evidence that a rape occurred?

This would no more be evidence than the presence of semen in a condom. In case where the accused claims the sex was consensual and the accuser claims it was not, neither a used condom or an unborn child is much help. The only way to address that problem would be interviewing those involved and checking their stories and their credibility.

The bill is pointless and redundant. New Mexico already has evidence tampering laws, and there is no reason why a skillful prosecutor could not convince a judge that those laws could extend to someone forcing a person to have an abortion to cover up a rape. Even then, that would already qualify as witness tampering, which would carry a stiff penalty on its own.

I understand Brown’s intent. It is not a bad one. All the legislators who backed this bill are women, so it is not another example of “teh menz trying to control wyminz bodies”.  Even those evil “white menz” likely have good intentions. Nevertheless, this is a stupid bill presented at the worst time for the Republican party. I have no problem with Republicans making further fools out of themselves, but this one could have been avoided. They already look bad and backwards, this does not help.

Likewise, as much as I enjoy watching liberals make themselves look like overreacting, gibbering masses of stupid, this really is not the case to go after. They really do not disagree with the intent of the bill. If anyone from their side proposed it, they would support it. This is just a case of the left wanting to score points against the right, and having their heads wedged so firmly up their own asses that they cannot help but see shit everywhere.

Everyone should take a breath and calm down.

About these ads

3 thoughts on “A (Double) Dose of Stupid v84

  1. It’s just a shame, T.S., that we can’t seem to legally abort some of these adults now-a-days.

  2. Hey champ, don’t let your hatred of liberals and feminists blind you to Rep. Brown’s insults to male victims or the relief she’s granting to female perpetrators.

    As you of all people should know, fetal tissue is just about the last possible and least relevant evidence of sexual violence imaginable. Not completely irrelevant. But wow is it low on the list.

    And speaking for myself, as a man and a survivor of sexual violence I’m particularly annoyed by the way Brown’s bill further hard-wires male-on-female, penis-in-vagina violence as the only kind that matters. Especially the revised version.

    I mean, are you seriously going to say you’re happier with the revision she now claims (in tweets no less) she meant all along: that no mother will ever be prosecuted for destroying evidence of assault or incest by procuring an abortion for herself? Because see, again, above about only male-on-female violence being the only kind that matters: no woman ever could initiate sexual assault or incest, discover herself pregnant, and destroy evidence of her own guilt.

    Here’s the revised text, in the original all-caps but italics mine.

    “AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING THAT A PERSON WHO COMMITS
    CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST AND WHO PROCURES AN ABORTION OF A FETUS RESULTING FROM THE CRIME WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME IS GUILTY OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE; PROHIBITING PROSECUTION OF THE MOTHER OF THE FETUS.

    Somewhere out there a slightly less baby crazy but no less predatory successor to Mary Kay Laterno just got her wings.

    figleaf

    p.s. If as you say “liberals and feminists” are overblowing this because Brown’s interest is only in protecting pitiful pregnant victims from evidence-tampering abortions at the hands of their perpetrators then do you think she’d be perfectly fine, or even encouraging, if a pregnant victim sought an abortion in order to more hastily obtain and present that evidence? What’s that? Yeah, I don’t think her newfound interest in victim advocacy goes terribly deep either.

  3. Hey champ, don’t let your hatred of liberals and feminists blind you

    I neither hate or love liberals and feminists, and I dislike all political ideologies regardless of what side they take.

    to Rep. Brown’s insults to male victims or the relief she’s granting to female perpetrators.

    I see no relief for female perpetrators. In order for Brown’s law to apply one would have to show the woman had the abortion specifically to hide the rape, and even then one would need to get around the state and federal laws allowing women to have abortions for any reason.

    I mean, are you seriously going to say you’re happier with the revision she now claims (in tweets no less) she meant all along: that no mother will ever be prosecuted for destroying evidence of assault or incest by procuring an abortion for herself?

    The proposed law is stupid to begin with. The state already has evidence tampering laws. It does not need more, and certainly not one with such vague wording.

    Because see, again, above about only male-on-female violence being the only kind that matters: no woman ever could initiate sexual assault or incest, discover herself pregnant, and destroy evidence of her own guilt.

    It has likely already occurred, and yet there is nothing one can do about it because Roe v Wade protects women’s right to have abortions for whatever reasons they see fit. Brown’s law would be trumped by Roe v Wade and state laws regardless of the edits.

    Somewhere out there a slightly less baby crazy but no less predatory successor to Mary Kay Laterno just got her wings.

    Yet whose fault was that? Brown’s proposal as it initially was likely would not have applied in such cases, but a skilled prosecutor might have been able to make an argument for it. Now, because of liberals and feminists losing their minds, the proposal, which likely will not pass, includes a statement wholly excluding the pregnant woman as a potential evidence tamperer. That is what happens when one reacts instead of thinks.

    If as you say “liberals and feminists” are overblowing this because Brown’s interest is only in protecting pitiful pregnant victims from evidence-tampering abortions at the hands of their perpetrators then do you think she’d be perfectly fine, or even encouraging, if a pregnant victim sought an abortion in order to more hastily obtain and present that evidence? What’s that? Yeah, I don’t think her newfound interest in victim advocacy goes terribly deep either.

    It would make no logical sense because a doctor can extract DNA from the unborn child while it is still in the womb. Unless the abortion doctor was hard up for money, I am sure they tell women that. So I would no reason for Brown to support such abortions, particularly since she appears to be anti-abortion.

    As for interest in victim advocacy, I do not think either side is terribly interested in the victims. I think they are both more concerned about pushing their own opinions and political agendas, and abortion and rape simply serve good tools to beat the other side with. How unfortunate that neither has good aim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s