Left all freaked out, smearing GOP over New Mexico abortion non-bill

January 24, 2013

Via Memeorandum I see much of the left is busy smearing the GOP over what amounts to a New Mexico non-bill “New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As ‘Tampering With Evidence’” – issued by a female legislator btw. But it’s much ado about nothing if one bothers to do the slightest bit of research: Carlsbads Cathrynn Brown under fire for bill on abortion by rape victims – Carlsbad Current-Argus.

 Her proposal, House Bill 206, says: “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.”Rep. Nate Gentry, R-Albuquerque, said Browns intent was to focus on a perpetrator, such as a stepfather who raped a teen, impregnated her and then demanded that she get an abortion.

Brown did not want to put any onus on a rape victim, Gentry said.An attorney, Brown said her practice is to edit a bill carefully before releasing it. This time, a drafting error occurred and she was not diligent enough so it got through, she said.”Shes horrified,” Gentry said.

Brown, beginning her second term in the House of Representatives, said she had never been through a storm like this one. Her bill created a flurry of criticism, in the Capitol and on the Internet. Groups in New Mexico and elsewhere denounced her bill as a second assault on rape victims.

Brown, R-Carlsbad, said her bill was badly drafted and that she did not catch the language problems when reviewing it. “I missed this one,” she said Thursday.

But the mis-reporting fits the left’s narrative, so why bother worrying about the facts. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the MSM pick up the non-story either.


AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. Ragspierre says:

    Compare and contrast to…


    The New York State gun grab.

    Where bad drafting was a feature, not a bug.

  2. Not Likely says:

    Yeah, the word “procuring” just accidentally slipped in there. That makes perfect sense.

    • Ragspierre says:

      You got anything…you know…informed…???

      Not Likely.

    • Ragspierre says:

      I know you are the standard ignorant, hate-twisted Collectivist puke, but…

      in the law, “procurement” and “facilitation” are two distinct concepts.

      Just FYI…

      • Not Likely says:

        Procure. Obtain. First person.


        • Ragspierre says:

          No, you loon.

          “Procure” was a very intentional inclusion in a bill about procuring an abortion for the purpose of covering a crime.

          I meant, other than your stupid innuendo, did you have anything to offer.

          Geez, what an idiot.

          • Sanity says:

            [[“Procure” was a very intentional inclusion in a bill about procuring an abortion for the purpose of covering a crime.]]]

            Except the bill doesn’t limit its application to “procuring” an abortion “for the purpose of covering a crime.”

            And we’re to believe that a seasoned attorney (clearly not you), who says that it is her practice to review the language of the bills she drafts, made a whoopsie. We’re supposed to believe that she just didn’t understand the language of the bill she wrote.

            Only you, and idiot and a liar, are too stupid and dishonest at the same time, to believe that.

          • Ragspierre says:

            Except the bill doesn’t limit its application to “procuring” an abortion “for the purpose of covering a crime.”

            Really? Quote to the part you assert supports that lie, liar.

  3. Ragspierre says:

    UnSanity…an idiot and demonstrated liar…AND a truly hate-twisted Collectivist troll…

    cannot overcome the obvious intent of the drafting, and the provision of a mens rea burden for prosecuting under the NOT law.

    Just another example of the Collective finding a LIE over which to light its hair on fire.

    The language of the bill as written was innocuous, but left a very thin sliver of ambiguity that could have been misused.

    Again, compare and contrast to Collectivist drafting, where ambiguity is a feature, not a bug.

  4. Ragspierre says:


    Pres. Tyrannosaurus Rex got spanked by a Federal appeals court for blatantly violating the law.

  5. Ragspierre says:

    A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.
    —Huffing Glue Post

    That is an outright, total, and blatant lie, which inverts the language of the bill.

  6. Ragspierre says:

    Speaking of stupidly drafted boondoggles from the Collective…

    “As I laid out in this piece, because ObamaCare allows me to game the system in this way, for the first time in over 25 years, I’m an uninsured-American. Going forward, my plan is to pay the annual penalty, which is ridiculously cheaper than insurance, and only purchase health insurance should I get sick.

    As soon as the masses figure out this option under Obamacare — that there’s even less of an incentive to purchase health insurance than there was before ObamaCare passed — that’s how the system crashes.

    For obvious reasons, neither the White House nor the media wants this information to become well known. They’re too invested in ObamaCare being part of the reason Obama’s put on Mt. Rushmore. But it’s bad law, Americans are not dumb, and I cannot think of anything more patriotic than to use civil disobedience as a way to bring the whole thing down.”

    Yep. I’m already there.

    Civil disobedience works every time it is tried and has enough popular support.

    Heh. And HEH!