MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
FactCheck VS NARAL
I don't like these NARAL people. I don't want to see abortions generally outlawed, but these people are not making rational arguments any more. (Not that I think that abortions are generally a good thing. They aren't. But sometimes it does come down to one life against another. Do I think the state is qualified to be the judge of that? No. Even religions don't quite agree on the really hard cases.
Our government can hardly add. It can't even figure out how to get people flu vaccinations. Let's be rational about this and be careful before we make a bad situation even worse. There are so many unnecessary abortions because people are being reckless, immoral and sometimes flat broke. Government can't generally make people prudent and moral. It doesn't seem to be doing very well at addressing the flat-broke problem either.)
Kobayashi Maru linked to this FactCheck.org rebuttal of a rather nasty NARAL slam on Roberts, which FactCheck.org summarized as follows:
Update: This has nothing to do with FactCheck or NARAL, but I thought it belonged in here. Hat tip to The Barking Dingo. Here's a group called the Public Advocate of the United States (Have you ever noticed that really extreme groups either on the right or left always have these really pompous names? Like there are no other public advocacy groups in the US!):
Our government can hardly add. It can't even figure out how to get people flu vaccinations. Let's be rational about this and be careful before we make a bad situation even worse. There are so many unnecessary abortions because people are being reckless, immoral and sometimes flat broke. Government can't generally make people prudent and moral. It doesn't seem to be doing very well at addressing the flat-broke problem either.)
Kobayashi Maru linked to this FactCheck.org rebuttal of a rather nasty NARAL slam on Roberts, which FactCheck.org summarized as follows:
An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .I don't want to be snide, but any person of good will and reason who watches the circus that this nomination has become has to concede that we can't afford to be too self-righteous about the wonder of our own democracy. We seem to be very good at fostering fanaticism and outrageous lies lately. More from FactCheck.org's analysis:
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too.
The ad shows images of a bombed clinic before a woman identified as Emily Lyons appears on screen, saying "I nearly lost my life." An announcer says, "Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber".The announcer then urges viewers to "call your Senators" and "tell them to oppose John Roberts" because we "can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."This is completely inappropriate.
Update: This has nothing to do with FactCheck or NARAL, but I thought it belonged in here. Hat tip to The Barking Dingo. Here's a group called the Public Advocate of the United States (Have you ever noticed that really extreme groups either on the right or left always have these really pompous names? Like there are no other public advocacy groups in the US!):
Reporters flocked outside of the Supreme Court this morning as Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio announced at a press conference that the conservative pro-family group would no longer be supporting Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.Geeze. Get a life, people! Do they really think gay people should not be allowed to make claims before the Supreme Court? I guess so.
The move comes because as a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson Judge Roberts was volunteered to give the free legal advice to the radical homosexual lobby in their successful attempt to use judicial activism to overturn the will of the people of Colorado.
Comments:
<< Home
Hi...I found a comment you left at http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2213 regarding your son-in-law being deployed to Afghanistan. My husband deployed with them. I just wanted to see my thoughts that your son-in-law is safe. If your daughter needs anyone to talk to (since I'm in NC also) you can pass on my information. (I'll be posting a link to my website where that info is)
# posted by 
: 4:59 PM
: 4:59 PM 
Yes, the ad is quite absurd. I guess they felt then needed to spend the money that they collected even if it is in a misleading/false accusation.
Post a Comment
<< Home
