Oregon: last state standing without anti-choice laws

For several years I’ve watched as numerous pieces of legislation across the country deprived women of the fundamental right to make their own health care decisions. There have been a lot of nonsensical bills introduced, some of which actively seek to harm women.

Photo © Tim Korte/AP
Photo © Tim Korte/AP

For several years I’ve watched as numerous pieces of legislation across the country deprived women of the fundamental right to make their own health care decisions. There have been a lot of nonsensical bills introduced, some of which actively seek to harm women.

On Jan. 24, however, I woke up to discover what might honestly be the most asinine piece of legislation I’ve seen in a while: New Mexico House Bill 206.

Introduced by Republican state representative Cathrynn Brown, the bill would effectively charge any rape or incest survivor in New Mexico who chooses to terminate a pregnancy resulting from a rape with a third-degree felony for tampering with evidence. This carries a sentence of up to three years.

According to Brown, the bill is intended to punish a rapist who may attempt to conceal evidence of the crime by forcing a survivor to obtain an abortion. In Brown’s own words, “New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders…we can help protect women across our state.”

The bill’s language clearly doesn’t protect women. Instead, doctors who performed abortions, parents who helped their minor children have an abortion and women who had legal medical abortions following rape would all be charged with a felony. This law wouldn’t actually deter a rapist from committing a sexual assault, and it’s glaringly unconstitutional.

Additionally, the very idea of charging anyone who has obtained or who aids in providing an abortion with tampering with evidence is faulty, because there’s nothing that would prevent law enforcement from obtaining the evidence. DNA can be obtained regardless of whether a survivor who ends up pregnant as a result of a rape chooses to have an abortion. It’s actually riskier for the survivor’s health to attempt to obtain DNA from a fetus that will be carried to term than it is to do so after an abortion. In many cases the paternity DNA test is conducted after birth, while obtaining DNA during an abortion occurs much sooner.

Only a few hours after news of this bill got out, Brown realized she wasn’t winning any awards for her efforts to “protect women.” She removed all contact information from her website and added language to her personal webpage saying that the bill would not charge “victims.” But! The bill’s language clearly states: “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” and that “whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished.”

There’s nothing to ensure that a rape survivor won’t be prosecuted.

It’s hard to believe Brown, and though she promised that women who choose abortion wouldn’t be arrested, the law would still charge doctors who performed abortions. When Brown publicly acknowledged that the information on her website wasn’t backed by the language within the bill itself, she claimed this was the fault of the “bill drafter,” who apparently quit his job while writing the bill.

To translate, Brown didn’t actually know exactly what was in her bill before introducing it. Once she “realized” what was in her bill, she reworded it. It now reads: “A person who commits sexual penetration or incest and who procures an abortion of a fetus resulting from the crime with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime is guilty of tampering with evidence, prohibiting prosecution of the mother of the fetus…In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged.”

I’m not sure I’m happy with this slightly improved version. First of all, it isn’t necessary legislation, and I still suspect that Brown’s motives are more about preventing women from having the option of abortion than about preventing rape.

Does Brown really think that a rapist forcing a survivor into a hospital or abortion clinic won’t garner some attention from medical professionals? I’m irritated that Brown’s idiotic idea has actually become a bill, and I’m perturbed she thought her constituents would react well to it. It
reflects a political climate in which Republicans introduce legislation that’s inconsistent or counterintuitive at best, and truly offensive and harmful at worst.

Moving forward, I’d like to see legislators from all parties make some attempt to consider what legislation that actually helps women should look like. We’re lucky that here in Oregon we don’t have laws placing huge burdens on women attempting to obtain abortions, but that could change. We need to do all we can to ensure that Oregon remains the last state standing.