New Mexico Dems Move To Protect Sexual Predators!!!

 

So, a New Mexico legislator is proposing a bill which would make it illegal to compel or coerce a person to have an abortion in order to destroy evidence of “criminal sexual penetration or incest“. 

New Mexico’s Democratic Party chairman calls it an “atrocious piece of legislation.”

It’s odd, but none of the stories I found actually named New Mexico’s Dem Party chairman, presumably, that would be Javier Gonzales (Santa Fe).

The person introducing the legislation is Rep. Cathrynn Brown, from Carlsbad.

What is atrocious about passing a law that makes it a crime to force someone to have an abortion in order to destroy evidence of a sex crime?  Sure, abortion is a hot-button topic, but, this, it seems to me, is a no brainer.   Is it that Dems want sexual predators to have the ability to force people to have abortions?

About these ads
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to New Mexico Dems Move To Protect Sexual Predators!!!

  1. philjourdan says:

    They are going full stupid because the law contains the word abortion.

  2. kelly liddle says:

    “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.”

    So if a rape victim wishes have an abortion and forget that it ever happened it means according to the first 7 words of the quote she will be considered a criminal. Is this really what you want? The next parts are not much better and could easily make a parent the criminal for offering there heart felt advice. If it said the perpetrator could be convicted for “compelling or coercing” then I might think it is ok but unintended consequences should be thought of and this bill is as bad as you can get based on the quote.

    • cdquarles says:

      First of all, Kelly, an abortion is a homicide. Second, that’s not how I read the statute, particularly since some key context is left out. I read it as the rapist makes his victim have an abortion or bribes his victim to have an abortion when the victim would rather not be forced to have an abortion *and* said baby is indeed evidence that a crime was committed, in other words, treat this like any other felony homicide that wouldn’t be considered a felony murder.

    • philjourdan says:

      Not hardly. You quoted but then ignored the most important clause: “with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.”

    • suyts says:

      Exactly right cd, context

      Kelly, read the wording again. Much of the proposed law has to do with intent thereby invalidating your scenarios. Let’s go through this…..“shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another…”

      So, this isn’t stating that the person can’t get an abortion, but that a person cannot force this upon someone else…… another

      Then there is the intent clause…… “……with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.”

      So, this would in no way prohibit the parent from giving advice, unless the parent was the one who violated the person and the advice was to destroy evidence of the crime.

    • kelly liddle says:

      CD
      That is the only quote we have to go off unless you want to find the original. This in theory is not about abortion and the legalities of that. Read the link, the representative says she will revise it. That is an admission that there is something wrong with it. A storm in a tea cup.

    • kelly liddle says:

      Now you are just pointing out another problem. Intent to destroy evidence of a crime. Mother or Father or even the rapist decide to assist the girl to have an abortion as she has asked for that. How exactly would intent be determined? He says she says. It needs to be totally re written.

      • philjourdan says:

        The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent. It is tried in a court every day. The difference between self defense and murder is intent. It is adjudicated every day.

        Half the laws on the books (in any nation) mention “intent” as a condition. You can run over a person’s foot and it not be a crime. If there was no intent to (and you were not under the influence of a foreign substance).

      • kelly liddle says:

        Phil
        In the case of say murder there will be other evidence to back it up other than words. Like if I was to murder someone there are 2 angles to determine my intent, how the other person was killed and reasons I would want him or her killed. With this it is much more subtle and would mean determining what someone was thinking with no hard evidence.

        A very simple answer would be “it shall be determined that if a man who has committed a sexual assault helps assist or encourages the person whom he committed it against to have an abortion this shall be deemed as destroying evidence in a crime”

        There is still some problem with this and that is that an 18 year old boy could recieve a criminal record or more for having sex with his 17 year old girl friend and helping with an abortion. I am not sure but I believe age of consent in the US is 18.

        • suyts says:

          Kelly, the age of consent problem is there regardless of this law. 18 is and isn’t the age of consent. There are many young men out there now with a label of “sexual predator” for very similar scenarios. It often happens when parents of a girl find out she’s been having sex….. they go after the male. It’s a problem and needs addressed. It renders the legal label of “sexual predator” meaningless.

        • cdquarles says:

          The age of consent varies from state to state. In some states, provided no rape, incest, mental deficiency, or intoxicants are involved, the age of consent ranges from 14 (possibly lower) to 18 *and* if the other partner is within 2 years of age of each other. Where I live, if said minor has not been emancipated (you can get married here at 14 if both parents agree), the minimum age of consent is 16 unless you are within 2 years of age difference. So, for instance, a 16 year old sophomore can legally have sexual relations with a 14 year old freshman, certain other circumstances not being present.

        • philjourdan says:

          Kelly, there are many angles to every crime. But since most are committed without a reliable eye witness, and virtually none are tried with the defendant expressing motives, the prosecution has to go on one angle only. That is the reality of life (not a TV show). The law clearly stated “intent”. Ergo a parent helping a woman have an abortion does not go to intent unless the parent is a suspect. So there is no crime.

          You can try to rewrite the law anyway you want. But 2 things will prevent you from being successful. One is the word abortion. It is the sunlight to the pro-abortion vampires and they will fight ANY law that has the word in it that is not also included with “unlimited”.

          The second problem is interpretation. And is the reason you pay dearly for lawyers. You do not pay them a fortune for their knowledge as most have no more than you. What you pay them for is the ability to convince others of their viewpoint since they are masters at bastardizing the language.

          So please feel free to offer your suggestions, but remember that no matter how finely tuned you make the law, you still have to include the word abortion, and lawyers will still pick it apart.

  3. cdquarles says:

    *that should read both sets of parents* I must buy a keyboard soon.

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