THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Jul 13, 2024  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM 
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM 
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM 
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM Sports Media Index – Perfect for Fantasy Sports Fans.
Sponsor:  QWIKET.COM Sports Media Index – Perfect for Fantasy Sports Fans. Track media mentions of your fantasy team.
back  
topic
Red State
Red State
29 Apr 2023
Nick Arama


NextImg:CO Dems Go Over Cliff With Radical Take on Bill Targeting Indecent Exposure to Children

Lawmakers were faced with a significant problem in Colorado.

They were trying to deal with a disparity that somehow exists in Colorado law when it comes to indecent exposure to children. The current law makes it a felony to expose oneself online to a child. Yet, it’s only a misdemeanor if it’s done in person. The Colorado DA’s Council wanted to change that to make it a felony if it was done in person too, which makes a lot of sense. So, it came up as a bill in the Colorado House for a vote.

Who could be against such a change in the law? You would think that would be a no-brainer, right?

Except not so much, as the Colorado House Republicans explained. They said that while it was a bipartisan bill, there were 27 Democrats who voted against it.

Loading a Tweet...

Then the GOP pointed out one of the arguments being made by a Democrat.

Loading a Tweet...

These kinds of laws have been used to ban drag shows, she claimed, or to “target individuals” who use the restrooms of the “sex that they identify with.”

No, the law targets people who expose themselves to children. There’s a big difference between either of the two things that she’s talking about and exposing yourself to children. You have to have that act against a child. So, what is she even saying here?

There isn’t anything complicated in the law. There’s no effort to go after trans people or drag shows in the language. That’s just nonsense.

You can read the whole thing, it’s very short, and it just makes indecent exposure a class 6 felony if committed given a person who is under 18 years of age. That’s it. So, if the person isn’t exposing himself/touching himself in front of a child, he has nothing to worry about.

What are Democrats telling us here with these objections? This isn’t a defensible position. She said she was “very concerned” about the “attacks against transgender people across the country.” Nobody was talking about transgender people in the bill, so why is she? Is she equating transgender people with people who commit indecent exposure?

Needless to say, that earned the Democrats a lot of ire on Twitter with this position, which many called disgusting and not protecting children.

Loading a Tweet...

Exactly. So they’d rather imagine some problem, and virtue signal on the issue, while not dishing out any real punishment to the offenders who do such disgusting things to kids.

DA’s say, of 90 people charged with indecent exposure involving a child in the last four years, only seven have been sentenced to prison.

“I think its stunning at this point to try to understand why any person would find that conduct that involves exposing oneself in front of a child with sexual intent should not be a felony,” said Tom Raynes of the Colorado District Attorneys Council.

We pointed out how in Minnesota a transgender lawmaker wanted language taken out of the Human Rights Act that was targeting pedophiles.

Democrats appear ready to go over a cliff with these radical positions.