Possible NM Bill Makes Abortion Illegal as Destruction of Evidence
Posted by Jim Newman on January 28th, 2013 – 1 Comment – Posted in religion
New Mexico is joining Arizona as one of the more wacky states.
New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown has come under attack for a bill she recently introduced that would brand survivors of rape and incest who become pregnant and chose to have abortions as felons.
This can’t possibly have anything to do with legal progress in prosecuting the rapist. This is obviously an excuse to eliminate abortion even in cases of rape. What a nasty, sneaky way to do it.
“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 bill reads.
Brown tries to backtrack.
“House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims,” Brown said in a statement emailed to ABC News. “Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist — not the victim — would be charged with tampering of evidence.”
Not only will they get rid of abortion they will have the victim carry the baby BUT the rapist is the one to be punished.
Do you see the fucking twisted logic here? If a baby is a blessing, if a soul needs a body, if god wants women to bear children regardless, it is no hardship for a woman to come to term with a rapist seed. It’s a fucking gift, right? A miracle. Let’s celebrate. This is so sick I can hardly eat breakfast.
I’m sure this proposal will die quickly but I can’t believe any compassionate person, and cohorts, would even think of it.
Jim Newman, bright, well, and pissed
Given the Supremacy Clause, and given that such a statute “would have the effect of” preventing abortion, a right granted under the 14th amendment (as decided in Roe v Wade), this would thus be unconstitutional.
This principle has been re-affirmed in :
- Edgar v. Mite Corporation 1982
- Cooper v. Aaron 1958
- Ableman v. Booth 1859
- McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
- State v. Reid, (1840)
and (ironically) by the most anto abortion SCOTUS Judge Scalia, in Heller 2008.
Such a statute would be challenged “immediately” and doomed to failure. Voters, that is taxpayers, should be asking their legislators why they are wastingtime and money passing unconstitutional law.