No More Lies From Anyone!
I am pro-choice. It’s not a choice I would make for myself and I don’t know who’s right about when a fertilized egg technically becomes a living being, but I am a supporter of a woman’s right to make that choice for herself. Granted I have all sorts of qualifiers about what I think is right or wrong. I do think there should be a cut-off of some sort. I don’t think women who are more than five or six months pregnant should be able to abort their child unless it’s for a medical reason, but again, who makes that cut-off decision? I don’t know.
What I do know is that I’m tired of people misrepresenting the facts that are undeniable. I’m tired of organizations using the television and big-names spokespeople to mislead and misdirect the public. I was tired of it last year long before Nov. 2nd and I’m still tired of it. I have no patience for it anymore.
The NARAL Pro-Choice America TV ad depicting Supreme Court nominee John Roberts as supporting bombers of abortion clinics is one on of those such misrepresentations. It uses words and images to make implications that are just not true.
As Associate Counsel to President Reagan, in a 1986 memo, John Roberts wrote that abortion-clinic bombers “should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” He refered to the bombers as “criminals.” [“NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts”]
Furthermore, the brief the ad claims Roberts filed was written seven years before the abortion clinic bombing depicted and and talked about in the NARAL ad. The brief itself was regarding a case where an abortion clinic had sued protestors blockading the clinics. Bombs were not involved.
The ad contends that Roberts “filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.” Indeed, Roberts’ name appears on the “friend of the court” brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic that the ad shows. But what Roberts was supporting wasn’t violence or bombing or even the behavior that was the subject of the lawsuit - blockades of clinics. In fact, Roberts went out of his way to say that the blockaders were trespassing, which is a violation of state law. What Roberts argued was that a federal anti-discrimination law couldn’t be used against abortion blockaders because they weren’t discriminating against women – they were blockading men, too. [“NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts”]
*sigh*
The sad part is that the damage is already done. Of all the people who saw the ad, very few will check the facts or even believe the facts now that the misrepresentation is “out there”. Those of us who care enough to be well-informed take in all sorts of resources and we know how to use factcheck.org. No wonder we’re becoming a country of lemmings.
Well, at least for me, the more I read about John Roberts, the more I like what I’m finding out about him. He seems to be an upstanding guy with the courage to interpret the law without letting any personal or political beliefs get in the way.
tags: pro-choice, John Roberts, Supreme Court, NARAL
You may also enjoy...
2 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on August 14, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Big Dog said:
NM, it is refreshing to meet a self proclaimed liberal who thinks for herself. Too often people on both sides of the aisle tow the party line and can not exercise independent thought. I have been wondering why no democratic senator came out and said what you did.
As for the pro-choice part. I do not agree with abortion and I think it is murder. Yet, if the SCOTUS says it is a woman’s right then it is until the law is changed. Just because it is allowed though does not mean they should be paid for with federal money. Medicaid and other social programs that provide these services as well as government clinics are being funded with tax dollars. Money paid by tax payers who might not want their tax dollars paying for an abortion. If it is a woman’s right to have one it is her responsibility to pay for it.
I have a right to own a car but the taxpayers did not buy one for me.
on August 15, 2005 at 7:10 pm
n. mallory said:
O.K. Well, I’ll agree with you about the federal money thing. There are a number of things I don’t think the government should be paying for. For example, Viagra.
In fact, I have a real issue with insurance companies that will pay for Viagra but not birth control — even for women who need it for medical conditions.
As an interesting side note, the number of abortions per year were steadily declining by almost 2% per year in the 90’s but there has been an increase since Bush took office — most of the women cited “inability to support a child”. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2851283)
Mind you, if people took more responsibility ahead of time, this wouldn’t be such a problem.