Getting ahead of the upcoming session and drafted a bill for supporters of the Akin distinction about legitimate/forcible/actual rape:
SECTION 1. IC 35-42-4-1, AS ADDED BY P.L.148-1976, SECTION 2, AND AMENDED BY P.L.340, SEC.36; P.L.320-1983, SEC.23; P.L.16-1984, SEC.19; P.L.297-1989, SEC.1; P.L.31-1998, SEC.3., IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who knowingly or intentionally has sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex when:
(1) the other person is compelled by force or imminent threat of force;
(2) the other person is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring; or
(3) the other person is so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to sexual intercourse cannot be given;
commits rape, a Class B felony.
(b) An offense described in subsection (a) is a Class A felony if:
(1) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(2) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(3) it results in serious bodily injury to a person other than a defendant; or
(4) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim’s knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim’s knowledge.
(c) If pregnancy results from the sexual intercourse described in subsection (a), such pregnancy shall create a rebuttable presumption that the offense did not occur.
Who wants to introduce it?
Folks not all that familiar with how bills to amend existing legislation are written might miss the fact that since section (c) at the very end is in boldface [didn’t stand out all that much on my screen], that’s what’s being added.
So if a resulting pregnancy creates a “rebuttable presumption” that no rape occurred, what kind of evidence would it take to rebut? If the Indiana General Assembly had a Scott Akin in its ranks [a strong presumption in itself], he would clearly strake “rebuttable” and substitute “conclusive”.
How about State Representative Bob Morris and State Senator Dennis Kruse?
HR 01 and SB 01.
Doug,
You should have some fun with this. Email copies to legislators, uber-conservative Indiana web sites. Offer it up as legislation proposed for the next term sent to them for consideration. You could get some buzz and some laughs out of it.
Won’t be funny when this actually passes. Playing with fire.