Proposed New Mexico Bill Would Make Abortions After Rape a Felony

New Mexico’s Republican representative Cathrynn Brown proposed a new bill against abortions on Jan. 23. Sounds like old news, right?  Well this particular bill, House bill 206, would make it a felony for a victim of rape to get an abortion, according to huffingtonpost.com.  In technical terms, “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,” as reported in huffingtonpost.com.  It won’t just be the woman who decides to get the abortion facing charges, but the doctor who performed it and the assaulter (if he convinced the woman to get the abortion) would be at fault and face charges as well.  Brown claims that if a rape victim tries to get an abortion, it would be intentional tampering with evidence worthy of a third-degree felony.

Forbes says it is not expected that this bill has any chance at passing since the Democrats control the legislative bodies in New Mexico, but that is not the most worrisome part of it all.  Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive non-profit opposing the bill, called it “blatantly unconstitutional,” according to huffingtonpost.com.  I agree with his statement that it goes against everything the Constitution stands for: protecting the rights of the people.  The idea behind this bill could be contagious, creeping its way into the minds of representatives and possibly even citizens in other states around the country.  The bill does not have to be passed to do damage.  Just planting the idea of a baby being an object to use in trial, the only purpose of its existence to be evidence for a courtroom charade is a terrible thing.

Some parts of this story don’t seem to add up.  It makes sense that a Republican is fighting against abortions, but I was shocked to discover it is a woman behind the proposition of this law.  Republican or not, a woman is expected to have empathy for other women, especially when they are victims of rape.  Secondly, when did Republicans go from being pro-life to pro-do not abort your fetus because we need to use it later?  Thirdly, not all rapes result in pregnancy, and not all pregnancies are the result of rape.  Would this bill be inferring that there is no proof of rape when impregnation does not occur?  That after-the-fact medical examinations of the victim do not count?  That the victim cannot be trusted on her word alone that she was raped. That she has to allow the baby to be born to show her credibility?  My question is why, in Brown’s opinion, has the legal system of holding rapists accountable suddenly become so ineffective that such a drastic bill needs to be put into place?

Alexandra Petri of the Washington Post wrote, “But this is the trouble with any bill that seeks to ‘protect women’ by taking choice away from them.”  This pretty much sums up the mass amount of voiced complaints aimed at Brown after word of the bill spread and a good example of how the bill is in violation of the Constitution.  Forcing a woman to do something, especially with her own body, is not the way to protect the rights of the woman in an attempt to give her freedom.

According to USAToday, Brown has since attempted to clarify the purpose of her proposed bill. “Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest,” Brown said. “The rapist — not the victim — would be charged with tampering of evidence.” She also claimed that her bill was “badly drafted” and that she “missed the possible interpretation when reviewing the language.”  I doubt she’ll convince anyone that the wording was an accident, especially because, according to USA Today, the bill had nine GOP co-sponsors.

Since Brown has now said the intent of the bill was not to punish the victim, I wonder if the outrage about victims becoming felons was taken out of context and exaggerated. But then again I don’t understand how eliminating a woman’s option of terminating a pregnancy that is occurring in her own body as a result of a traumatic forceful sexual encounter would sound reasonable in any context.  Brown claims her bill will ideally deter sex offenders from committing the act of rape, but to me it just sounds like they are deterring women from coming forward about being raped for fear of what might happen next.

Avery Twible can be reached at avery.twible@spartans.ut.edu