Abortion Rights Group Withdraws Ad

[quaoar]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/11/national/w180733D52.DTL

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — After a week of protests by conservatives, an abortion-rights group said Thursday night it is withdrawing a television advertisement linking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to violent anti-abortion activists.

“We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts’ record,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“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, R-Pa., who had urged the group to withdraw the ad.

Specter, himself an abortion-rights supporter as well as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will question Roberts next month, earlier Thursday had called the ad “blatantly untrue and unfair.”

[ShockediSay]

1. Liberals admit to a mistake

ConsWervatives?

You tell me

[TaleWgnDg]

48. Yup, apparently, ShockediSay . . . this is the scoop

.

Yup, apparently, ShockediSay . . . this is the scoop on NARAL's false ad -- from factcheck.org:

NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts

Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic bomber and excused violence. In fact, Roberts called clinic bombers “criminals” who should be prosecuted fully.

August 9, 2005
Modified: August 9, 2005

Summary

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 .

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. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.

The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.

. . . for more on the NARAL ad from factcheck.org, go to . . . http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html

And, I find that NARAL should have taken down it's ad if it was a false ad.

(1) To falsely accuse Roberts, factually, is a huge error; and

(2) To state in a political ad that a lawyer whenever advocating for a client is guilty, too, of such beliefs and/or actions is wrong!

Merely because a lawyer takes a legal position in representing a client does not, then, mean that the lawyer has such personal beliefs, feelings or whatever! No way! Hell. If we, lawyers, only took cases in which we believed and assumed the legal position/stance was as our own, then who would represent criminal defendants? Who? Who would take the messy domestic relations cases? Who? And who the hell would protect our constitution?

Shame on NARAL. I am surprised. As a family law lawyer and as a long time women's constitutional rights advocate, I am deeply shocked at NARAL. However, that being said, I commend NARAL for stepping up to the plate and admitting a wrong. Let's hope that NARAL gets its act together quickly and challenges Roberts on factual grounds!

[Bumblebee]

2. They did blunder -- used an axe instead of a sword. Oh, well, happens.

[AtomicKitten]

Yes, but an axe is so efficient

except for the collateral damage.

Jon Stewart did a funny "thing" on this tonight. Overzealous lefties. Still, they have the right idea.

Ahem. Somebody might want to, like, say, fact check ads before they are made. Just a thought.

[AtomicKitten]

49. Yes, but an axe is so efficient

except for the collateral damage.

Jon Stewart did a funny "thing" on this tonight. Overzealous lefties. Still, they have the right idea.

Ahem. Somebody might want to, like, say, fact check ads before they are made. Just a thought.

[AtomicKitten]

50. Yes, but an axe is so efficient

except for the collateral damage.

Jon Stewart did a funny "thing" on this tonight. Overzealous lefties. Still, they have the right idea.

Ahem. Somebody might want to, like, say, fact check ads before they are made. Just a thought.

[Seeking Serenity]

3. Once again, liberals fold for nothing

I don't know whether the ad was 100% accurate or not, but it spoke to a larger truth. Putting this or any * nominee on the Court is a vote for clinic bombers and other terrorists.

The ad should not have been pulled.

:(

[Catholic Sensation]

5. so you believe in propoganda?

good to know that you believe in intellectual dishonesty. Very progressive.

[Seeking Serenity]

6. Fight them with their own tools

'Member the Swifties?

The gloves must be off.

[Catholic Sensation]

7. If you have to lie, you shouldn't debate.

It was disgusting when the Swift Vets "miscontrued" (lied) about John Kerry's Vietnam record, and I'd rather not see good liberal groups like NARAL start down that path where misrepresenting facts about someone is the status quo.

[Seeking Serenity]

8. I don't know that it was a misrepresentation

and it definitely raised the issue that this nominee will vote to hand every pregnant woman a coat hanger.

[Catholic Sensation]

9. independent reports say it was inaccurate

therefore it had no business being on the air.

[Seeking Serenity]

13. Was or was not a clinic bomber a named defendant in the case?

Did or did not Roberts make an argument in support of the same side as said clinic bomber?

Did or did not Roberts argue that women seeking to exercise their constitutional should not have the protection of a valid statute enacted by Congress?

Inaccurate? How so?

[Catholic Sensation]

16. the ad said he supports bombing abortion clinics

he was acting as the lawyer for someone who bombed an abortion clinic. A lawyer who defends a child molestor doesn't believe in child molestation. It's not black and white, and it's intellectually dishonest to make such a ridiculous claim.

[noamnety]

46. Here's how it was inaccurate

He defended a protester. 6 years later, that person became a clinic bomber. He wasn't a bomber at the time Roberts defended him.

[sendero]

21. Did anyone..

... make the SBVT ads come down? No. The NARAL ad was a legitimate possible interpretation of Roberts' action that had at least as much veracity as half the ads the Republicans run.

NARAL should not have folded. Too bad.

[Catholic Sensation]

23. people tried but they refused to

at least NARAL has enough class to realize they made a mistake.

[sendero]

24. No...

... their only mistake was in pulling the ad.

And the time when "class" as you mean it has any relevance in this country is over a decade ago. People on the floor with boots on their necks aren't "classy", they are "losers".

[Catholic Sensation]

26. people who believe in using dishonesty against opponents

have no business complaining when dishonesty is used against them.

[sendero]

28. Like..

I said I'd retract my statement and I now have.

It doens't mean I really think any differently though.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catholic Sensation]

35. i wouldn't expect you to make an intellectually honest argument either

so if their ad was an "interpretation" of an action, how is it any different from the swift vets calling kerry a traitor based on their interpretations of his actions in Vietnam? Your logic doesn't only apply to the liberal ideology, and allows for a slippery slope where groups can run ads based on their interpretations of a person's actions based completely on bullshit.

[sendero]

37. Bullshit as usual..

... the SBVT did a lot more than make their own interpretations of events, they created new events and denied documented ones.

That is a horses ass of a different color, though I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

39. Dude...

... I have no issues I need to deal with. I've stated my opinion, and edited it as I said it would.

Keep bringing a peashooter to the gunfight that is politics and let me know how that works for ya.

[blueintenn]

65. bingo

We will never win this battle until we get our hands dirty. Once we have regained some semblance of power then we can moderate our message as necessary. Until then, I'm sad to say, we need to lie and cheat and basically do whatever we have to do to take the country back from these freaks of nature.

Don't waste your time with speeches about 'not stooping to their level' and all that nonsense. We are in the middle of an ideological war and we're not going win playing like 13-year old girls having a pillow fight.


:dem:

[Crowdance]

42. Your in-you-face religious declaration invites this kind of thing

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or at least get yourself a screen name that invites discussion. Why is it some wear their names like a chip on the shoulder, then get all offended when folks try to knock it off? And yeah, yeah, I'm gonna set off fireworks if you start insulting crows, so don't go there.

[Catholic Sensation]

44. Really, so one's religion is fair game?

I didn't realize religious hatred was acceptable if the person is declarative about their religion. I'll know that next time I take part in a thread about al-Qaeda so I won't think twice before making a blanketed statement about Muslims.

[Crowdance]

52. I'm just glad you're not gonna go after crows...

[CTyankee]

4. Looks to me like they caved

to Spector and the other Senate cowards who call themselves prochoice. Sad day.

[journalist3072]

10. I don't understand the problem with the ad

Roberts defended the bastards responsible for bombing abortion clinics....which is paramount to supporting their actions.

[Catholic Sensation]

12. so if a lawyer defends a child murderer

he supports child murder?

[journalist3072]

40. Well if I was a lawyer....

I certainly would not represent a child murderer. If a person suspected of committing child murder came to me and asked me to defend them, and they either admitted they did it, or I strongly suspected they did, I would refuse to take the case.

That's all I'm saying.

[Catholic Sensation]

45. there's more to defending someone than simply trying to get them free

of a crime. The lawyer may see the upcoming charge of murder in the first degree extreme and incorrect, so to avoid someone who may not have committed a capital crime from potentially being executed, they'll defend the criminal to prevent an unnecessary execution (as they all tend to be anyway). It's rarely ever a cut and dry, black and white situation when it comes to this.

[Mistwell]

14. Wow, so all public defenders are criminals?

Defending someone is not the same to supporting their actions. If it were, every public defender would be in your mind a crime supporter. Defend someone from the death penalty and you must support rape and murder? Gimme a break. The ad was messed up. Plenty of reasons to oppose Roberts without resorting to that kind of misrepresentation.

[journalist3072]

41. See my reply above. n/t

[elperromagico]

43. So Ramsey Clark, in defending Hussein or Milosevic,

supports Hussein and Milosevic's actions?

Or does he feel that Hussein and Milosevic, no matter how evil their deeds, deserve fair trials?

Did the ACLU, in defending the Skokie Nazis, endorse their philosophy? Or did the ACLU feel that those Nazis, no matter how evil their ideas, had the same rights as any American?

Am I troubled by Roberts' actions? You bet your ass. But I am willing to believe -- until presented with evidence to the contrary -- that his defense of an abortion clinic bomber is not necessarily an endorsement of that person's actions.

[drfresh]

51. if I recall correctly

Their actions were 5 years after Roberts defended them. Jon Stewart told me so, so it must be true. :P

[pennylane100]

11. I hate when liberals let the truth get in the way

of smearing their opponents. The other side never does and thats why they alway win and we always lose.

[bluestateguy]

15. This is why I never bothered to defend them

because I knew they would just puss out, leaving me holding the bag.

If there is a lesson here it is this:

Never apologize for anything.

[Seeking Serenity]

17. No (GOP) Prisoners!

Expect no quarter. Give none.

[jaysunb]

18. Good !

Now let's hear the sound of, " one hand clapping !"

[onager]

25. The sound of one hand clapping is a slap upside the head

n/t

[union_maid]

19. It was a bad ad

It made them look nuts and wasn't going to convince anyone of anything. The point they were making wasn't bad. The ad itself was just badly done.

[Catt03]

22. I agree

I think the ad content was credible but scripted badly

[Seeking Serenity]

20. Grrrrrrr

:mad:

[howmad1]

27. So let's see........

......Dick Durbin apologizes for speaking truth. NARL apologizes for speaking truth. Next thing liberals will be apologizing for being (horror of horrors) liberal. Rethuglicans apologize for NOTHING! WTF, what the hell is happening to liberals? ;(

[SeanQuinn]

38. Glad this happened before I $$'d.

Leahy was right.

[davidinalameda]

47. they should have pulled it immediately

waiting this long and pulling it now makes them look like they caved, which they did

no one cares now that the ad is pulled--the damage to NARAL is done

[against all enemies]

53. Even Jon Stewart made fun of the ad, come on, keep it real.

There is enough this group of thugs does that are despicable without resorting to half-truths.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. U.S. abortion rights group pulls anti-Roberts ad

Here is the link to the full article:

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-08-12T032153Z_01_SCH212043_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-COURT-ROBERTS-AD-DC.XML


"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading U.S. abortion rights advocacy group pulled a controversial television advertisement on Thursday that accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of supporting an abortion clinic bomber and excusing violence.

NARAL Pro-Choice America withdrew the advertisement after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter complained in a letter that it was a blatantly unfair attack on Roberts for his participation, as deputy solicitor general, in an abortion clinic case".

[cap]

55. same tactic as Rathergate

eom

[yankeefanatic3]

57. Hark, the sound of Democrats surrendering

This constantly happens. The minute one prominent right-winger speaks out against them they immediately pull back. Revolting.

[mom cat]

60. We need to keep screaming at them! What an outrage!

[jsamuel]

56. the thing about Roberts isn't so much abortion (although, that is bad)

It is the fact that he ignored the Constitution of the United States when he ruled for Bush in the enemy combatants cases.

That was a blatant break of the balance of powers.

[high density]

58. Why is it OK for Republicans to use tactics like this

but when liberal leaning groups do it, they get a media swarm attacking them and then quickly back down? I give up!

[blueintenn]

61. hear hear!

From Willie Horton to the Swift Boats, every time our leadership is attacked they fold like Superman on laundry day. I've had it with our "leaders". It's up to the rank and file to take back this party. Dean is telling it like it is. I'm so mad I could puke.
:grr:

[TaleWgnDg]

59. . . . this is the scoop from factcheck.org . . .

.

. . . this is the scoop on NARAL's false ad -- from factcheck.org:

NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts

Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic bomber and excused violence. In fact, Roberts called clinic bombers “criminals” who should be prosecuted fully.

August 9, 2005
Modified: August 9, 2005

Summary

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 .

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. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.

The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.

. . . for more on the NARAL ad from factcheck.org, go to . . . http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html

And, I find that NARAL should have taken down it's ad if it was a false ad.

(1) To falsely accuse Roberts, factually, is a huge error; and

(2) To state in a political ad that a lawyer whenever advocating for a client is guilty, too, of such beliefs and/or actions is wrong!

Merely because a lawyer takes a legal position in representing a client does not, then, mean that the lawyer has such personal beliefs, feelings or whatever! No way! Hell. If we, lawyers, only took cases in which we believed and assumed the legal position/stance was as our own, then who would represent criminal defendants? Who? Who would take the messy domestic relations cases? Who? And who the hell would protect our constitution?

Shame on NARAL. I am surprised. As a family law lawyer and as a long time women's constitutional rights advocate, I am deeply shocked at NARAL. However, that being said, I commend NARAL for stepping up to the plate and admitting a wrong. Let's hope that NARAL gets its act together quickly and challenges Roberts on factual grounds!

[Ambrose]

62. I agree

We don't win by using republican tactics.

[Book Lover]

68. They are only tactics; they don't belong to any party

And I vehemently disagree. The only way we are going to win this war between the right and left is if we start fighting them with weapons that are effective. Save the truth for municipal elections and planning comissions, where it does some good.

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. Regretfully, I have to agree too

We can oppose Roberts' nomination and defend choice without resorting to lying--shame on NARAL

_________________


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html

[second edition]

64. I didn't like the message or care for the Rove tactics, but

I want to know why this ad was so blatantly untrue and unfair and the attacks on John Kerry by the Swift Boat vets wasn't met with the same amount of outrage and negative media coverage as this ad was. They were also blatantly untrue and unfair. I'm contacting Specter about this.

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. The problem was Kerry waited weeks to respond to those ads

rather than refuting them immediately.

[slackmaster]

67. Tu Quoque is not our best argument IMO

We're better off taking the high road on this one.