And once again my state makes international news. Oh goody.
Listen, we're working on this, OK? We're really sorry, and we'll try to make it up to the rest of you later, but for now just really... we're all very sorry you had to read that.
Redefining a child conceived via rape as "evidence" could make for some interesting evidence lockers at the station. Do they have to be sealed in tamper-proof plastic 'til the trial?
Does this mean that if the child is carried to term, lives, and subsequently has a sex-change operation, and then the mother belatedly comes to her senses and accuses the natural father of rape, the child can be done for tampering with evidence?
Wait, hang on, I have another question: what if the child is a boy and carried to term, and is a boy, and circumcised. Can anyone in the hospital, and/or the insurance company, be similarly done for tampering with evidence? After all, this was supposedly a sex crime, and the result of the crime has had its penis molested, and if that's not connected I don't know what is!
I like how they tag this on at the end as a bone to reasonable people: "with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime."
There ya go, reasonable people! The abortion is only tampering with evidence if you did it to destroy evidence! With this clear wording, and the ease with with intent can be divined in all cases, I'm sure there's absolutely no way this law could be abused to further victimize rape victims.
Because the author of the bill is 'hurt' that people thought rape victims would be charged, when clearly she only meant for people who force rape victims to get abortions to be charged, the bill now has this at the end: "In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged under this subsection."
She's a lawyer, so you would think she might have realized the wording of her bill was exactly opposite of her intentions (assuming her intentions haven't simply shifted as public outrage grew). I guess those who are good at law practice law and those who are bad at law go into politics?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-24 06:33 pm (UTC)Listen, we're working on this, OK? We're really sorry, and we'll try to make it up to the rest of you later, but for now just really... we're all very sorry you had to read that.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-24 07:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-24 08:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 05:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-24 09:17 pm (UTC)Just ask for a doggie back so you can take it home
Date: 2013-01-24 09:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-24 11:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 02:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 02:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 03:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 03:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 08:07 pm (UTC)There ya go, reasonable people! The abortion is only tampering with evidence if you did it to destroy evidence! With this clear wording, and the ease with with intent can be divined in all cases, I'm sure there's absolutely no way this law could be abused to further victimize rape victims.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-02-04 07:27 am (UTC)She's a lawyer, so you would think she might have realized the wording of her bill was exactly opposite of her intentions (assuming her intentions haven't simply shifted as public outrage grew). I guess those who are good at law practice law and those who are bad at law go into politics?
(no subject)
Date: 2013-02-18 06:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-02-18 10:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-02-18 11:21 pm (UTC)