Thursday, August 11, 2005
NARAL Still Libelling Roberts
"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America (search).NARAL is still lying; the advertisement was not misconstrued. FactCheck.org's analysis of the ad is here. The advertisement contained exceptionally vicious slanders. The closing words of the NARAL ad:
"Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public," she said in a letter Thursday to Sen. Arlen Specter (search), R-Pa., who had urged the group to withdraw the ad.
Call your Senators. Tell them to oppose John Roberts. America can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.Roberts never did that. Never. And if he had, NARAL would be trumpeting it, but instead NARAL had to cobble together the accusation. To claim that this was "misconstrued" is laughable, and to claim that NARAL wanted to have a "serious dialogue" with the American public is a lie.
The Boston Herald editorial staff had their say:
The 30-second spot, which NARAL Pro-Choice America is paying $500,000 to run on CNN and Fox cable and broadcast stations in Maine and Rhode Island, is so reprehensible it has even been disavowed by other pro-choice advocates. And it was panned by Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.Neither the announcement retracting the advertisement nor the fact that NARAL still has those claims on their website can convey the idea that they are prepared to engage in any sort of honest dialogue with the American public. Quote:
The ad says flat out, ``Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted [abortion] clinic bomber,'' adding later, ``America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.'' ...
It is a virtual certainty that John Roberts will sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Having sacrificed what remains of its credibility, NARAL's future is much less certain.
John Roberts sided with anti-choice extremistsWhen you click the link, it reads:
Learn about Roberts' record defending Operation Rescue, convicted clinic bomber, and anti-choice extremists.
In Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, then Principal Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored and submitted for the United States an amicus curiae brief, siding with the notorious anti-choice group Operation Rescue and some of the world’s most aggressive and violent anti-choice extremists, Michael Bray, Randall Terry, Patrick Mahoney, and others. In the amicus brief and during oral argument, John Roberts maintained that Operation Rescue’s unlawful behavior and “military-style tactics” used to block women from accessing reproductive-health clinics did not amount to discrimination against women and that a civil rights remedy was inappropriate.See also this pdf of NARAL's talking points against Roberts, which make the same points including, but not limited to:
- John Roberts excuses lawless conduct against women
- Instead of siding with women, John Roberts sided with Operation Rescue, a convicted clinic bomber, and other anti-choice extremists.
The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.Those who have considerably more reverence for God and less reverence for the Supreme Court than Nancy Pelosi would concede that NARAL has every right to disagree with the Supreme Court. However, if NARAL continues to maintain that Roberts "excuses lawless conduct against women" because of his brief in this case, logic dictates that NARAL must also accuse the Supreme Court of the same offense.
NARAL should either apologize to John Roberts publicly and remove its claim that John Roberts is on the side of clinic bombers and sanctions lawless conduct against women from its website or expand its accusations to include the Supreme Court. Failure to take one of these courses should irrevocably destroy its credibility in the eyes of the public. Many are awaiting NARAL's decision with great interest.
Also Published at Blogger News Network
Like the ad was nunaced?? Is this the new protocol for denying a lie- saying the lie was 'misconstrued'?
Gimme a break.
SC&A - They are showing their true ugliness. I don't think they should be allowed to disseminate the same information in the attack ad on their website without public commentary.
Links to this post: