|
|
|
Today’s News & Views False, False, False... -- Part One Several readers were kind enough to forward a story from today's New York Times. Written by Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, the account is both a report of how NARAL maliciously and falsely attacked Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts and a defense of its blatantly misleading ad offered up by NARAL's President. I had written about the ad on Tuesday and had intended to return to it yesterday but ran out of time. As it is we can have a fuller discussion today. That NARAL would go off the deep end at the prospect of ANY nominee sent up by President George Bush is hardly breaking news. What is marginally surprising is how sloppy and transparently inaccurate its ad is. But it's not just people like you and me making the case that NARAL is running falsehoods. Not only outsiders with impeccable reputations are calling NARAL to task, even someone with a strong past affiliation to NARAL has expressed "concern." The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. "Factcheck.org" is highly respected and non-partisan. The headline for its analysis is, "NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts." The gist of NARAL's ad (and Factcheck's conclusion) is contained in the first two paragraphs: "An abortion-rights group [NARAL] 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. "The ad is false." Factcheck criticizes NARAL's ad in about as many ways as a message can be critiqued. For example, contra NARAL, Roberts did not support "a bomber" nor did the brief NARAL alludes to in its ad have anything to do with bombing. "The [court] brief that Roberts signed, and on which the NARAL ad is based, is from another matter entirely. It is dated April 11, 1991. Furthermore, it is from a civil lawsuit brought by abortion clinics against protesters who were blockading the clinics. Bombing was not an issue." Writing on behalf of the Bush Administration in 1991, "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. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law." And just to make the point crystal clear, Factcheck.org wrote the following. "In words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false. To the contrary, during the Reagan administration when he was Associate Counsel to the President, Roberts drafted a memo saying abortion-clinic bombers 'should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.' In the 1986 memo, Roberts called abortion bombers 'criminals' and 'misguided individuals,' indicating that they would get no special treatment regarding requests for presidential pardons. Reagan in fact gave no pardons to abortion-clinic bombers." As for the pictures of a clinic bombing that you see in the ad, Factcheck.org notes that they happened "nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question" and--as noted--the brief dealt with a case that had nothing to do with bombing. There are lots of other specific instances of NARAL going beyond playing fast and loose with the truth to indulging in gross and unconscionable distortions, but you get the drift. However, as bad as this clearly is, what is almost more irritating is the press release that NARAL sent out to accompany the announcement of the ad which (according to the Times) NARAL "is spending $500,000 to place on the Fox and CNN cable networks, as well as on broadcast stations in Maine and Rhode Island." Its President, Nancy Kennan, is quoted as saying,"I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence," which, of course, was precisely the entire message of the ad. Indeed, as Factcheck.org noted, the ad ends with the announcer pleading, "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." A couple of the usual pro-abortion suspects are quoted in the Times piece this morning distancing themselves from NARAL's ad. But, in addition, Walter Dellinger, currently a professor at Duke University School of Law, wrote a letter yesterday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Dellinger expressed "concern" about "suggestions" in the ad that "one of John Roberts' Supreme Court arguments reflects an ideology that leads him 'to excuse violence against other Americans.'" Dellinger wrote, "It is unfair to suggest that John Roberts, in advancing a somewhat narrow interpretation of the 1871 statute, was supporting 'violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber'--as unfair as it would be to suggest that the six Justices who were part of the majority in Bray joined a decision supporting violent fringe groups. This is significant because until 1992, Dellinger co-chaired a NARAL-sponsored commission to defend Roe v. Wade. You can be sure that the attacks against a superbly qualified nominee will only build during the next four-to-six weeks. Keep checking in at www.nrlc.org to learn the truth. Please send all comments to Dave Andrusko at dandrusko@nrlc.org. |
|