Court Opinion

ID: 9570394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:22:48.119998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:12.758089
License: Public Domain

MACY, Justice,
dissenting, with whom URBIGKIT, Justice, joins.
I join in the dissent of Justice Urbigkit. The majority stated in their reply to the dissent that:
“We do not share the fear of the dissent that our holding in this case will subject medical practitioners to rape charges. It will not, unless of course intrusion into the genital or anal opening of another person be reasonably construed as for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse.” (Emphasis added.)
This reasoning simply acknowledges that intrusion must be accompanied by the intent to sexually arouse, gratify, or abuse.
“Purpose” is merely a synonym for “intent.”