Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

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

Posted by   + Show Post


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.

by on Jan. 26, 2013 at 1:45 AM
Replies (11-20):
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Everyone writes ambiguously at times, and sometimes what they intend to say is not clear from what they write - and needs to be edited, as is the case here.

You're not saying that only liberal statements and bills are perfect and never require editing, are you?

If so, please let me disabuse you of that misunderstanding.

Quoting 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:


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.




Lurion
by Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

So, not sure I understand... Are you saying that rapists or perpetrators of incest commonly try to force the victimm to have an abortion, and those women really don't want to? This law "protects" these women who want to have their rapists' babies, from undue influence or pressure of their rapist?

That doesn't make much sense to me. 

 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Had you done YOUR homework, you would know that the Congresswoman realized her wording in the bill could be interpreted exactly opposite of her intention - so she quickly decided to edit her bill for clarity.

I wish all of our lawmakers edited their work, don't you? Even our liberal lawmakers, who also happen to not be perfect communicators. Editing is an amazing thing. Lawyers and even average citizens do it all the time.

Quoting 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.




Clairwil
by Gold Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM
Quoting SallyMJ:
Quoting Clairwil:

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.

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.

Legislation isn't the equivalent of a hastily written email.

Legislation is the equivalent of a published contract.   If badly worded legislation gets passed, you can't says "Whoops, that's not what we intended" once someone has already been prosecuted under a low.


SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 11:53 AM

And as you know, a bill is not a law, and bills are edited all the time.

BTW, I would not call a law a "published contract" - as it does not meet the legal definition of a contract.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting SallyMJ:
Quoting Clairwil:

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.

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.

Legislation isn't the equivalent of a hastily written email.

Legislation is the equivalent of a published contract.   If badly worded legislation gets passed, you can't says "Whoops, that's not what we intended" once someone has already been prosecuted under a low.




sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 11:54 AM
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.


Obviously from this fact that you forgot to highlight, there was issues with the bill as written and the rape victim could have been prosecuted ...probably by some right wing religious freak
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM
You would think one would make sure rape victims would be safe before offering a bill

IMO, she meant what the bill said but got called out so now she's changing it

The republican leader, Boehner just announced he wants to "end abortion" this year and a GA official wants miscarriages investigated as possible crimes

Your party has shown their intentions and all the back pedaling in the world can't change that


Quoting SallyMJ:

Had you done YOUR homework, you would know that the Congresswoman realized her wording in the bill could be interpreted exactly opposite of her intention - so she quickly decided to edit her bill for clarity.

I wish all of our lawmakers edited their work, don't you? Even our liberal lawmakers, who also happen to not be perfect communicators. Editing is an amazing thing. Lawyers and even average citizens do it all the time.


Quoting 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.








Posted on CafeMom Mobile
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Negative. Read the actual text of his comments. Boehner wants to DEFUND ABORTION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Very different from ending access to abortion. I as a taxpayer just shouldn't have to pay for it.

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

You would think one would make sure rape victims would be safe before offering a bill

IMO, she meant what the bill said but got called out so now she's changing it

The republican leader, Boehner just announced he wants to "end abortion" this year and a GA official wants miscarriages investigated as possible crimes

Your party has shown their intentions and all the back pedaling in the world can't change that


Quoting SallyMJ:

Had you done YOUR homework, you would know that the Congresswoman realized her wording in the bill could be interpreted exactly opposite of her intention - so she quickly decided to edit her bill for clarity.

I wish all of our lawmakers edited their work, don't you? Even our liberal lawmakers, who also happen to not be perfect communicators. Editing is an amazing thing. Lawyers and even average citizens do it all the time.


Quoting 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.










chloedee
by Bronze Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM
She didn't realize anything or quickly change it until the public outcry as a result of news reporting. Whether she changed it because it was a genuine mistake or because she was backpedaling due to poor reception is unclear.



Do you blame people for being a little suspicious and not wanting to offer the benefit of the doubt after the Republican insanity about rape during the election? I realize people make mistakes, but you'd think they would be vigilant about anything concerning the subject at this point.



Quoting SallyMJ:

Had you done YOUR homework, you would know that the Congresswoman realized her wording in the bill could be interpreted exactly opposite of her intention - so she quickly decided to edit her bill for clarity.

I wish all of our lawmakers edited their work, don't you? Even our liberal lawmakers, who also happen to not be perfect communicators. Editing is an amazing thing. Lawyers and even average citizens do it all the time.



Quoting 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.














Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

You didn't address the rest..but you are wrong on this as well and NO tax dollars fund abortions now (see below)

D.C., on Friday to join the anti-abortion protest March for Life, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) took the opportunity to reiterate his commitment to banning abortion in America for good.

Addressing the crowd at the National Mall via video broadcast, Boehner said it's time for anti-abortion activisits to "commit ourselves to doing everything we can to protect the sanctity of life." Step one, he said, is making permanent the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest.

"For the new Congress, that means bringing together a bipartisan pro-life majority and getting to work," Boehner said. "In accordance with the will of the people, we will again work to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, formally codifying the Hyde Amendment."

Boehner said he will make it a national priority to "help make abortion a relic of the past."

"Let that be one of our most fundamental goals this year," he said.

Quoting SallyMJ:

Negative. Read the actual text of his comments. Boehner wants to DEFUND ABORTION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Very different from ending access to abortion. I as a taxpayer just shouldn't have to pay for it.

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

You would think one would make sure rape victims would be safe before offering a bill

IMO, she meant what the bill said but got called out so now she's changing it

The republican leader, Boehner just announced he wants to "end abortion" this year and a GA official wants miscarriages investigated as possible crimes

Your party has shown their intentions and all the back pedaling in the world can't change that


Quoting SallyMJ:

Had you done YOUR homework, you would know that the Congresswoman realized her wording in the bill could be interpreted exactly opposite of her intention - so she quickly decided to edit her bill for clarity.

I wish all of our lawmakers edited their work, don't you? Even our liberal lawmakers, who also happen to not be perfect communicators. Editing is an amazing thing. Lawyers and even average citizens do it all the time.


Quoting 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.











Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)