Abortion Bill Would Force Rape Victims To Continue Pregnancy As 'Evidence'

[rightsideout]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

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

Geez, the creative ways they come up.

[aquart]

1. Jezebel was eaten by dogs.

Too derivative?

[Waltons_Mtn]

2. Doesn't evidence need to be kept by the state?

So after a child is born, the state should be responsible for the "evidence", chain of custody and all. What happens to evidence once the trial is over? In most cases the "owner" must claim the evidence or the evidence is destroyed/sold off by the state.

[ablestmage]

3. Headline is utter contradiction of bill language

For those with elementary-school level sentence analysis, you can easily see that the proposal is about the *intent* to conceal evidence of a crime, not the act of destruction.

Even if the bill suggested that taking an evening stroll on Sundays, painting things orange, performing a 3-point turn on a 2-way street, or licking postage stamps were ways in which evidence could be concealed, the intent behind those actions must be specifically to conceal evidence -- and does not bring charges against those who perform those actions without intent to conceal evidence.

1. You may not get peanut butter stuck in your mouth with intent to talk funny.
2. You may not get peanut butter stuck in your mouth.

The specific forbidden action is the intent, not the act itself. Only interpretation #1 is in play here, not false interpretation of #2 that HuffPo is suggesting.