I think I get what the bill's author is trying to do. She's since clarified, but it was in the language of the bill (which was not written all that well, IMHO).What she's going for is trying to make it fall under evidence tampering if an abortion is performed with the intent to destroy evidence of a crime, and she was (she says) aiming at men who coerce or force women to have an abortion to cover up rape/incest. Which is kind of a thing...there are men who will financially threaten or intimidate women (or girls, or girls' mothers/caretakers) to get an abortion. This is most "effective" if the girl is young and the rapist is mom's boyfriend/husband and they're dependent on his income. I have no idea how much a problem this is or if it is a problem at all these days. In the privacy of a clinic, I would hope that the medical staff could figure out if they're dealing with someone who is being pushed into having an abortion they don't want. I wouldn't think there would be that many women wanting to continue their pregnancy that resulted from rape, but if they wanted to, and the rapist tried to force force her into an abortion she didn't want, to cover up what he did, I'd be fine with the courts adding that onto the rape charges. It seems like they could get to the same place by using existing laws about intimidating witnesses and tampering with evidence.It does sound an awful lot like the victim is responsible for incubating evidence against her rapist, which is pretty "war on women" sounding.cm
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra