Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A New Legislative Season Means A New Offensive in the GOP's War On Women

Link
A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for “tampering with evidence.”

So that's a new standard in barbarity, even for the GOP.

This is of course after the last two years saw a record number of abortion measures in the states; the loss of the VAWA, which the VP is trying to get re-enacted; a continuing denial of the pay disparity that led to the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; and numerous other offenses. I imagine there's significant griping about the women in combat decision from elected officials, though so far I've only seen the Family Research Council's protests.

So here's a thread to document the GOP's war on women. Again. Some more.

Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.

Posts

  • ChanusChanus Sugoi! ^_____^Registered User regular
    Well, I mean, seriously.

    How else is it possible to prove you were pregnant other than actually showing people your baby?

    It's not like people keep records of stuff when you seek medical treatment.

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    ArchHarry DresdenDelmain
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    I do not approve of this new interpretation of the phrase "producing a witness."

    AngelHedgieEvigilantspacekungfumanMortiousAegeriMillshrykeV1mAntimatterPantsBDeebaserViskodKamarHarry DresdenAstaereth
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    I have smart friends who go out of their way to disavow nuts like this. "That's not real conservatism" "They're hijacking the Republican Party with their social agenda" (that's my favorite one MORAL MAJORITY PEEPS) "These people are not the voice of the party". When do you straight drop that R and move on? Hell even if you want to be as Galt as Galt himself, but you have some semblance of real coherent thought I'd think that you'd just stay the hell away from any organization that spawns this thinking.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • MelokuMeloku Ask me about my Illusions Registered User regular
    What the how the why would you think this is a good idea, anyone? How? Just

    Brain, spilling out of my skull here.

    Choice quote:
    UPDATE: 12:25 p.m. -- Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims ... Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist—not the victim—would be charged with tampering of evidence. I am submitting a substitute draft to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear.

    http://www.nmtelegram.com/2013/01/24/bill-criminalizes-abortions-in-case-of-rape/

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    lazegamer wrote: »
    House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims ... Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist—not the victim—would be charged with tampering of evidence. I am submitting a substitute draft to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear.

    http://www.nmtelegram.com/2013/01/24/bill-criminalizes-abortions-in-case-of-rape/

    That's not an improvement.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    lazegamer wrote: »
    House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims ... Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist—not the victim—would be charged with tampering of evidence. I am submitting a substitute draft to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear.

    http://www.nmtelegram.com/2013/01/24/bill-criminalizes-abortions-in-case-of-rape/
    Let's read what the bill actually says: (PDF)
    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.
    It sounds like she said what she meant, got hit with a huge-ass backlash for it, and is now trying to backtrack. Either that, or she's too stupid to be a legislator.

    FeralKamar
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims ... Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist—not the victim—would be charged with tampering of evidence. I am submitting a substitute draft to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear.

    http://www.nmtelegram.com/2013/01/24/bill-criminalizes-abortions-in-case-of-rape/
    Let's read what the bill actually says: (PDF)
    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.
    It sounds like she said what she meant, got hit with a huge-ass backlash for it, and is now trying to backtrack. Either that, or she's too stupid to be a legislator.

    whycan'titbeboth.jpg

    FeralAntimatterHarry Dresden
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    lazegamer wrote: »
    House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims ... Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist—not the victim—would be charged with tampering of evidence. I am submitting a substitute draft to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear.

    http://www.nmtelegram.com/2013/01/24/bill-criminalizes-abortions-in-case-of-rape/

    That's not an improvement.

    You're saying that punishing rapists for procuring an abortion for the victim is equally as bad as punishing victims for having an abortion.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims ... Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist—not the victim—would be charged with tampering of evidence. I am submitting a substitute draft to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear.

    http://www.nmtelegram.com/2013/01/24/bill-criminalizes-abortions-in-case-of-rape/

    That's not an improvement.

    You're saying that punishing rapists for procuring an abortion for the victim is equally as bad as punishing victims for having an abortion.

    All it would do is punish rapists for using insufficient force when falcon-punching their victims in the gut.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    I suppose if a nonviolent rapist sticks around long enough for "procuring an abortion" to be a possibility, he could simply procure a coat hanger instead.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I suppose if a nonviolent rapist sticks around long enough for "procuring an abortion" to be a possibility, he could simply procure a coat hanger instead.

    I don't see how that wouldn't be punished as well, it isn't as if only abortions performed safely would be subject to the law. It's not particularly uncommon for victims of incest to be under the influence of their rapists.

    I don't see much distinction here between the rapist forcing an abortion and a rapist forcing the baby to be carried to term. In either case, it's a further violation of the victim and it's reasonable to see additional charges brought.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • JurgJurg In a TeacupRegistered User regular
    "Hey, people hate rape, right?"
    "Yeah, we learned that the hard way."
    "Well, what if we found a way to take away a woman's right to choose, and framed it so that anti-life people hated babies AND loved rape?"
    "Awesome. Let's get lunch."

    sig.gif
    FeralAegeriAntimatterKamaroverride367
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Wow. Facilitating would certainly implicate the doctors and nurses. Even if drafted correctly, I still think it would be ridiculous, as an aborted fetus can be used for a paternity test just as well as a live baby, so even if you ignore the horrible pro-lifer intent, it just doesn't make sense as a matter of evidence.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
    FeralMelokuAegeriV1mAntimatterKamar
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I suppose if a nonviolent rapist sticks around long enough for "procuring an abortion" to be a possibility, he could simply procure a coat hanger instead.

    I don't see how that wouldn't be punished as well, it isn't as if only abortions performed safely would be subject to the law. It's not particularly uncommon for victims of incest to be under the influence of their rapists.

    I don't see much distinction here between the rapist forcing an abortion and a rapist forcing the baby to be carried to term. In either case, it's a further violation of the victim and it's reasonable to see additional charges brought.

    This incentivizes the sex abuser to pressure the victim into unsafe forms of abortion, away from the scrutiny of medical care providers. A big reason why we have abortion rights at all is to prevent back alley abortions.

    In any case, if you really want to fight incest and spousal rape, passing more laws to bring more criminal charges to bear against the abusers isn't really going to help much. The problem isn't that we don't have a big enough book to throw at them; the problem is actually finding them, getting the victims into safe housing, and getting a conviction to stick.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I suppose if a nonviolent rapist sticks around long enough for "procuring an abortion" to be a possibility, he could simply procure a coat hanger instead.

    I don't see how that wouldn't be punished as well, it isn't as if only abortions performed safely would be subject to the law. It's not particularly uncommon for victims of incest to be under the influence of their rapists.

    I don't see much distinction here between the rapist forcing an abortion and a rapist forcing the baby to be carried to term. In either case, it's a further violation of the victim and it's reasonable to see additional charges brought.

    This incentivizes the sex abuser to pressure the victim into unsafe forms of abortion, away from the scrutiny of medical care providers. A big reason why we have abortion rights at all is to prevent back alley abortions.

    In any case, if you really want to fight incest and spousal rape, passing more laws to bring more criminal charges to bear against the abusers isn't really going to help much. The problem isn't that we don't have a big enough book to throw at them; the problem is actually finding them, getting the victims into safe housing, and getting a conviction to stick.

    I don't really see the penalty for this affecting the rapist's judgement in either case. I don't think it would even come to mind when they were considering how to prevent being caught. I agree with you though that the largest problem is finding them, and the book is large enough. The law is largely unnecessary and possibly harmful.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    My state would like to get in on the woman raping, apparently.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    My state would like to get in on the woman raping, apparently.

    Le sigh.

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    FWIW, the outcry caused the Speaker to kill the bill. And after the Speaker announced this, Snyder bravely weighed in against it.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    edited May 2014
    Tennessee passes bill criminalizing drug-related pregnancy complications

    Goddamnit.

    (Wasn't sure whether to necropost or create a new thread, sorry.)

    Calica on
    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    override367
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Shoulda started a new thread, but whatevs, no big.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Oh man, that article has some manwhut in it:
    While the immediate goal of prenatal medical care was to reduce mortality rates in childbirth, the public rhetoric advocating for such care often emphasized eugenic goals of race betterment and weeding out abnormality. This legacy of using prenatal care to eradicate defects is still evident in its emphasis on testing for conditions such as Down syndrome. In the 1980s, the decade of fetal rights, women began to be prosecuted for reasons deemed abuse of unborn children, ranging from drug addiction to failure to follow a doctor’s orders.

    I'm pretty sure that testing for serious congenital disorders is not quite the same as eugenics, given that a lot of congenital disorders are kind of terrible and non-survivable, and maybe you don't want to deliver a baby just so you can watch it wriggle in anguish for a few hours before dying.

    Anyway, I'm kinda sympathetic towards this sort of bill, even if I think it's a bad idea. Drugs like meth can do some pretty horrible things to a fetus in terms of birth defects, being born addicted, or outright death, so it's definitely a problem to be addressed. It's just that outright criminalizing it is not going to help matters, especially when the drugs themselves are already illegal. Around here, if a pregnant mom is verified to be using illegal drugs (say, the kid is born pos tox for meth), it just gets immediately reported to CPS so the family can work with social services and hopefully avert a shitty fate for the kid. That's going to work out a lot better than just throwing the mom in jail.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited May 2014
    I forget, is a fetus a life or evidence?

    Edit - Oh hey guess who fell for the old news trap. D'oh.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I forget, is a fetus a life or evidence?

    It's a life until God "takes it home", then it becomes evidence.

    Fuck Firearm Fetishism
    86 45
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I forget, is a fetus a life or evidence?

    That depends, are you looking to punish a rapist or a slut?

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
    FeralElJeffeshrykeRMS OceanicRhesus PositiveKamarForarRedTideCalicaDevoutlyApatheticMan in the Mists
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    edited May 2014
    How about we just offer better healthcare for poor women and offer drug treatment programs without the threat of throwing them in prison for 15 years if their child is born with one of these conditions regardless.

    Because, that law is going to do the opposite of what it's supposed to do. If anything it will just scare more women away from getting anywhere near a treatment program or a doctor for fear of being thrown in jail.

    Viskod on
    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    zagdrobElJeffeDivideByZeroMillSo It GoesArdolKamarCalica
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    How about we just offer better healthcare for poor women and offer drug treatment programs without the threat of throwing them in prison for 15 years if their child is born with one of these conditions regardless.

    Because, that law is going to do the opposite of what it's supposed to do. If anything it will just scare more women away from getting anywhere near a treatment program or a doctor for fear of being thrown in jail.

    You know as well as the rest of us that for those assholes, it's just working as intended.

  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I forget, is a fetus a life or evidence?

    That depends, are you looking to punish a rapist or a slut?

    Oh my goodness.

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
Sign In or Register to comment.