Clearly missing from the definition is the use of a living human being as an object capable of submission as evidence in any legal trial scenario. Considering that—for so long as I can recall—pro-life advocates have argued that a fetus is a living person from the moment of inception, one wonders why Rep. Brown would now suggest that the fetus is an ‘object’ subject to entry into evidence in a rape trial as it seems reasonable to imagine that such a concept would be highly offensive to both pro-life and pro-abortion forces.Funny you insist others provide support for their claims.
Yet you say something really stupid about the stock market and pull a hissy fit when challenged.
You're a sick little troll, Emaam.
Just like DB.
More importantly, consider that proving that a victim is—or was—pregnant is completely irrelevant to making a rape case! Unless New Mexico intends to only prosecute accused rapists or practitioners of incest who impregnate their victims, the existence of a fetus is no evidence of rape or incest whatsoever.
Not only is pregnancy not evidentiary of rape, it could not even rise to the level of creating a presumption of a crime. If it could, then any pregnant woman would be presumed to have been raped while a women who did not become pregnant would be presumed not have been sexually assaulted.
So, how can aborting a pregnancy ever be tampering with evidence when a pregnancy—or lack thereof—is never evidence in the first place when prosecuting a case for rape or incest?
The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state. According to Republican philosophy, victims who are ‘legitimately raped’ will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case.“
House Bill 206 reads in part:
“B. Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion,(thereby including the victim, physician or anyone else 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.(emphasis added)”
If Representative Brown seeks criminal status solely for those who compel or coerce another to obtain an abortion in a case of rape—and the law is not designed to target the victim herself as Brown has suggested—she certainly would have wanted to omit the first part of Paragraph “B” which clearly turns a rape victim into a criminal should she ‘tamper with the evidence’ by obtaining an abortion.