MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts Uses False Abortion Story to Smear Conservatives

[SallyMJ]

By Jeffrey Meyer | January 25, 2013 | 15:00

Leave it to MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts to attempt to smear the pro-life movement on the day of the March for Life with a misleading story about a law introduced in New Mexico regarding abortion. Roberts erroneously reported on a New Mexico state legislator named Cathrynn Brown, who, “introduced a bill that would force rape victims to carry their babies to term and their babies would be used as evidence during a court trial… Under the bill, a rape victim who had an abortion would be thrown in jail for tampering with evidence.”

Roberts brought on Pat Davis, the Executive Director of Progress Now in New Mexico to bash the bill, which, by the way, Roberts completely mischaracterized. What the bill actually would do is make it a crime for a rapist to pressure his victim into undergoing an abortion. 

Davis railed against “a growing caucus of these Tea Party and crazy conservatives on the right" who are "doing what they can with some of these sleeper bills they hope nobody would notice.”

Roberts clearly showed his pro-abortion sentiments in misreporting this story by asking Davis to:

Explain to us the new normal for a state legislature, you know, state legislator in New Mexico is to actually have a woman come forward to say, you know, admit that she's been raped, she's impregnated and then they’re going to make her carry that baby to term?

Had Roberts done some basic research, however, he would have realized the law is designed to do no such thing. In fact, as the bill itself says, the crime (emphasis mine), “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." 

State Representative Cathrynn Brown said the purpose of the bill was to target perpetrators of rape of incest who try to cover their tracks by forcing their victims to have abortions.  Brown does say that she will clarify the language in the bill to remove any ambiguity that victims of rape would be charged, which she in no way desires to do.

Roberts’ disgusting attempts at smearing pro-life individuals and failing to show any semblance of journalism is shameful.  Had he done his homework, Roberts could have gotten the story straight, but that would have ruined the fun of bringing on a liberal guest to smear pro-lifers as radicals.

[SallyMJ]

These are the actual facts behind the purported "outrageous abortion bill" described on CM a few days ago.

The media, all relying on good ol' MSNBC's stellar objective journalism.

[Clairwil]

Quoting SallyMJ:

By Jeffrey Meyer | January 25, 2013 | 15:00

Leave it to MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts to attempt to smear the pro-life movement on the day of the March for Life with a misleading story about a law introduced in New Mexico regarding abortion.

The story was indeed wrong.

However, given how many people on CafeMom also failed to correctly parse the key line in the legislation, do you have any evidence that it wasn't just a reading comprehension fail on the part of Roberts, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead?

[Clairwil]

Quoting SallyMJ:

The media, all relying on good ol' MSNBC's stellar objective journalism.

I don't have much sympathy for trained reporters who blindly re-report another journalist's story, without double checking it; especially when double checking is as simple as following a link in the story to read the actual text of the legislation, which was available online.

On the other hand, given that the Republicans are now changing the wording of the bill to make the intent clearer, perhaps part of the fault does lie with the original wording being somewhat unclear to non-pedants.

[Megan1118]

I wasn't aware that rapists forcing their victims to have abortion was all that common OR that the victims are all that willing to say "hey im being forced by my rapist to have this abortion." And even if it is common I'd really like to know how MSNBC's story was false since the bill does not state that it would ONLY be a crime if a rapist forces/pressures victim into having an abortion. Ever occur to you that Cathryn Brown is just covering her ass now?? Why would she write a bill that very CLEARLY states that procuring or facilitating an abortion OR compelling/coercing a person to have an abortion is tampering with evidence?? Obviously her bill was written as she wants and now she is back tracking.

If a rapist has that much control over their victims after that they can coerce them to have an abortion - then how the hell is anyone going to know that victim is being forced to have an abortion? Either way its a ridiculous bill - to criminally charge rape victims for having abortions or to prevent rapists from coercing their victims into having abortions.


House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."
“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," the bill says.
Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.



http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0206.pdf

[Megan1118]

Also the emphasis is wrong in the above post. Tampering with evidence (as states in the bill) is procuring or facilitating an abortion, OR compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion.

So no the liberal media did not try to smear pro-life individuals - the read the bill as is. Bills shouldn't be written with "ambiguous" language. Maybe her intentions are as she is saying now but if so, she needs to learn how to write bills better.

Quoting SallyMJ:

By Jeffrey Meyer | January 25, 2013 | 15:00

Leave it to MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts to attempt to smear the pro-life movement on the day of the March for Life with a misleading story about a law introduced in New Mexico regarding abortion. Roberts erroneously reported on a New Mexico state legislator named Cathrynn Brown, who, “introduced a bill that would force rape victims to carry their babies to term and their babies would be used as evidence during a court trial… Under the bill, a rape victim who had an abortion would be thrown in jail for tampering with evidence.”

Roberts brought on Pat Davis, the Executive Director of Progress Now in New Mexico to bash the bill, which, by the way, Roberts completely mischaracterized. What the bill actually would do is make it a crime for a rapist to pressure his victim into undergoing an abortion. 

Davis railed against “a growing caucus of these Tea Party and crazy conservatives on the right" who are "doing what they can with some of these sleeper bills they hope nobody would notice.”

Roberts clearly showed his pro-abortion sentiments in misreporting this story by asking Davis to:

Explain to us the new normal for a state legislature, you know, state legislator in New Mexico is to actually have a woman come forward to say, you know, admit that she's been raped, she's impregnated and then they’re going to make her carry that baby to term?

Had Roberts done some basic research, however, he would have realized the law is designed to do no such thing. In fact, as the bill itself says, the crime (emphasis mine), “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." 

State Representative Cathrynn Brown said the purpose of the bill was to target perpetrators of rape of incest who try to cover their tracks by forcing their victims to have abortions.  Brown does say that she will clarify the language in the bill to remove any ambiguity that victims of rape would be charged, which she in no way desires to do.

Roberts’ disgusting attempts at smearing pro-life individuals and failing to show any semblance of journalism is shameful.  Had he done his homework, Roberts could have gotten the story straight, but that would have ruined the fun of bringing on a liberal guest to smear pro-lifers as radicals.

[PTmomma3]

Had you done your homework, you'd realize that MSNBC and every other news networks reported the accurate story on a bill that Ms Brown has now changed so that she doesn't send rape and incest victims to prison. She blamed it on whoever typed it up for her, although she, too, missed the offensive wording when she proofread it. Yeah, sure.

NM bill classifies post-rape abortion as 'evidence tampering'
Posted by Breann Bierman, Elizabeth Erwin
Jan 25, 2013 8:27 p.m.

Rep. Cathrynn Brown, R-Carlsbad (Source: cathrynnbrown.com)
SANTA FE, NM (CBS5, KRQE, AP) - A New Mexico lawmaker says the intent of her bill that classifies babies of rapes as evidence is to stop rapists and people who are committing incest, but her proposal is drawing controversy.

Critics claim Rep. Cathrynn Brown, R-Carlsbad, of trying to criminalize abortions.

The bill 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."

The bill could put rape victims behind bars for up to three years if they got an abortion to cover up rape or incest.

"I was shocked in reading it but then as an attorney, I started looking at it and thought that's not how we gather evidence in a rape anyway, so it doesn't even make sense logically," Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuqeurque, said.

Brown later told KRQE that a mistake was made. She blamed the bill's drafter for an error that somehow got past her final review.

"When he fixed some of the tampering language in the bill, somehow it just kind of missed the emphasis I thought I'd made clear in the beginning," Brown told KRQE.

Late Friday night Brown updated the bill on her website. The changes prohibited prosecution of the mother of the fetus. However, the bill still indicated abortion in the case of rape and incest would tamper with evidence.

Copyright 2013 CBS 5 (KPHO Broadcasting Corporation). All rights reserved. KRQE and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

[SallyMJ]

I think what you're saying is that you do not believe in editing things you write - even emails at work - when they are not clear, and can be interpreted as other than you intended. Wow, that must cause problems at work - it certainly would for me. And it would cause problems for authors and sign-makers. I guess it takes all kinds. Some know they are not perfect, and are thus more self-evaluative in order to communicate clearly. Some think they are perfect, with no need to evaluate their writing and statements. 

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting SallyMJ:

The media, all relying on good ol' MSNBC's stellar objective journalism.

I don't have much sympathy for trained reporters who blindly re-report another journalist's story, without double checking it; especially when double checking is as simple as following a link in the story to read the actual text of the legislation, which was available online.

On the other hand, given that the Republicans are now changing the wording of the bill to make the intent clearer, perhaps part of the fault does lie with the original wording being somewhat unclear to non-pedants.

[SallyMJ]

Please. He is a news commentator. You don't think he reads what he discusses? Even I don't think liberals are stupid. 

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting SallyMJ:

By Jeffrey Meyer | January 25, 2013 | 15:00

Leave it to MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts to attempt to smear the pro-life movement on the day of the March for Life with a misleading story about a law introduced in New Mexico regarding abortion.

The story was indeed wrong.

However, given how many people on CafeMom also failed to correctly parse the key line in the legislation, do you have any evidence that it wasn't just a reading comprehension fail on the part of Roberts, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead?

[tnmomofive]

This is what I figured.Which is why I did not even bother replying to the posts that were posted by very misinformed ladies who thought they had a GOTCHA moment LOL.I mean get real if that were what the actual bill stated it would be effing outrageous to ALL of us.

[SallyMJ]

Wow, that is very convoluted thinking - but I would never accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist. Seriousy, I wouldn't. But that's what it reminds me of.

"If you hear hoofbeats, it is probably a horse, and not a zebra." Great advice from the medical profession.

Quoting Megan1118:

I wasn't aware that rapists forcing their victims to have abortion was all that common OR that the victims are all that willing to say "hey im being forced by my rapist to have this abortion." And even if it is common I'd really like to know how MSNBC's story was false since the bill does not state that it would ONLY be a crime if a rapist forces/pressures victim into having an abortion. Ever occur to you that Cathryn Brown is just covering her ass now?? Why would she write a bill that very CLEARLY states that procuring or facilitating an abortion OR compelling/coercing a person to have an abortion is tampering with evidence?? Obviously her bill was written as she wants and now she is back tracking.

If a rapist has that much control over their victims after that they can coerce them to have an abortion - then how the hell is anyone going to know that victim is being forced to have an abortion? Either way its a ridiculous bill - to criminally charge rape victims for having abortions or to prevent rapists from coercing their victims into having abortions.


House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."
“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," the bill says.
Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.



http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0206.pdf