Reply #48: Yup, apparently, ShockediSay . . . this is the scoop [View All]

[TaleWgnDg]

.

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!