Back in June, The Globe reported that Democratic Clark County Commissioner Michael Naft (Friends of Michael Naft) launched a smear campaign targeting his GOP challenger Ryan Hamilton, and in his recent campaign mailers sent to voters in District A, Naft doubles down on his deception by accusing Hamilton of opposing reproductive freedom by wanting to “take away your right to a safe and legal abortion.” Naft also falsely accuses  Hamilton of being “an illegal robocall telemarketer” who was “ordered to face a jury trial for defamation and libel.”

Will the average voter fact check Naft’s claims? Unlikely, so we did.

For over 30 years in Nevada, abortion is protected by state statute and cannot be undone by a county commissioner, state legislator, governor, an act of congress, or a U.S. President. The statute must be overturned by another ballot initiative passed by voters. Not one Nevada republican, GOP candidate, nor President Trump supports a “national abortion ban.”

Nevadans passed an initiative in 1990 that codified abortion up to six months of pregnancy with extended protections if the life–not the mental health– of the mother is threatened. The overturn of Roe v. Wade did not change Nevada law; but, according to critics, the Reproductive Freedom Amendment (Question 6) does in that it removes the six-month limitation and expands abortion to the moment of birth when the undefined health or mental health of the individual is at risk.

But why miss out on an opportunity to recycle fearful democratic talking points when a constitutional amendment allowing abortion up to the moment of birth, and for any reason, is on the ballot. In other words, never let a manufactured crisis go to waste.

According to the amendment’s language, the mental health of the “individual” will be determined by an ambiguous “health care provider,” who may or may not be a physician according to Nevada statute. Since men can supposedly get pregnant, the term “woman” is entirely absent from the amendment’s language and is replaced with “individual.”

Additionally, as Nevada is the number one state for human trafficking, the absence of parental consent for a minor to receive an abortion has been an ongoing concern that is currently in litigation.

Naft cites an unknown and unavailable 2012 article to support his smear against Hamilton and also uses Hamilton’s public opposition to an invited pro-choice keynote speaker at a Catholic university in 2019. To Naft, freedom of religion and religious expression is seemingly second to the right to an individual’s late- term abortion, yet Naft ironically labels Hamilton as an extremist.

With regard to Hamilton being an “illegal robocall telemarketer,” the article Naft cites does not support his claim.  In fact, according to Hamilton, he was a witness, not a defendant, in that trial.

We attempted to reach Naft for comment last week, but he not replied to our following questions:

The flier contains “The Daily Nonpareil” 2012 citation, however I have been unable to find an article related to that citation. Can you please provide?

In the cited defamation/liable case, Mr. Hamilton was a witness and not a defendant. This mailer implies Mr. Hamilton was a defendant/illegal robocall telemarketer who was ordered to face a jury trial. Would you like to comment on this tactic used by your campaign?

Lastly, what is a county commissioner’s role in protecting abortion rights? How can a commissioner “take away your right to a safe and legal abortion?” In regards to Mr. Hamilton’s statement of opposition to U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey’s invitation to speak at a Catholic university, do you believe that freedom of religion and religious expression is as important as the right to an abortion?

Hamilton provided The Globe with a statement to debunk Naft’s campaign claims:

“The citation from 2012 is fake. I have also never made any public statements about the merits of legal abortion—the only thing I have ever done was point out Catholic schools ought not have pro-choice commencement speakers for reasons so obvious I didn’t enumerate them – as commissioner I know people aren’t electing me to do anything about abortion, and I pledge to continue to make no public statements regarding the merits of legal abortion neither will I, as commissioner, initiate any actions related to abortion in our state. Plainly speaking, it isn’t my business what happens between a woman and her doctor. 

The sad reality Michael Naft is making things up about my record, including a citation created from thin air, to distract from his actual record: historic increases in homelessness, dog euthanasia, traffic nightmares and the skyrocketing cost of living. That’s his legacy, and he’ll do anything to avoid talking about it.”