Posted on 08/10/2005 9:08:10 AM PDT by Crackingham
From the indignation of his defenders, it seems the Battle of John Roberts might have begun in earnest this week. On Monday, NARAL Pro-Choice America launched a major ad campaign that aims to scare a small portion of America, then raise more money to scare the rest. NARAL will spend $500,000 to frighten cable news watchers and the people of Maine and Rhode Island, home to three liberal Republican senators. The 30-second ad is titled "Speaking Out." Here's the script:
Announcer: Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a woman's health clinic in Birmingham, Ala.
Emily Lyons: When a bomb ripped through my clinic, I almost lost my life. I will never be the same.
Announcer: Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.
Lyons: I'm determined to stop this violence, so I'm speaking out.
Announcer: 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.
The ladies who gave Plato's "noble lie" new uses in the hearings of Clarence Thomas are at it again. NARAL is using the image of the abortion clinic bombing by Eric Rudolph to suggest that Judge Roberts would excuse such violence--even though NARAL's leaders have admitted to the press that Judge Roberts has condemned clinic violence. Indeed, the Washington Post reported last week that in 1986, when he was an assistant in the White House counsel's office, Mr. Roberts wrote a memo recommending against a presidential pardon for abortion-clinic bombers. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals," Roberts wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This morning I was listening to C-Span and there was a lady who was fighting silicone breast implants.
She was asked if women wouldn't get the medical information from the doctor. The woman said that the doctors were part of the profit center and wouldn't provide the information needed.
So we shouldn't interfere in the private decisions of a woman and a doctor, BUT we should interfere in the private decisions of a woman and her doctor.
Because in one case it is a sacred trust, and in the other case the doctor is a tool of the medical profession.
Many professional abortionists earn in excess of $1,000,000 per year, most of that net income.
Hmm...desperation. It's a wonderful thing, eh?
I haven't yet read that excerpt about Robert's advocating against a Presidential pardon...that just makes me more upset...NARAL must've done this knowing full well that they were making a mistake.
That's the way they play, isn't it?
A big part of my problem with abortion is that it hurts women so much. They treat them like dollar signs, the unborn are treated that way as well.
Men are stripped of all reproductive rights but left with reproductive responsibility.
If they ran abortion as an actual medical procedure in a regular hospital without trying to sell abortions, I don't think I'd be so adamently prolife. I'd still be prolife, but not as much as I am. He threatens everything NARAL stands for.
No comment necessary.
WSJ has done a good job bringing in new perspectives on the abortion topic. Remember months ago that it was WSJ Opinion Journal that mentioned how Democrats were killing off their voter base by supporting abortion.
The genius of those over at WSJ continues to amaze me :)
Agreed. It seems these folks sincerely have their heads in the game and actually, "fact check" prior to spewing news all over the place.
Their reputation proceeds them and smacking the NARAL ad around certainly helps keep it that way.
40 million men and women who were never born: When blades ripped through our unborn bodies, we lost our lives. We will never be the same.
Hannity taking on NARAL WABC radio now.
Link: http://www.wabcradio.com/
"Astonishing" does no justice to the irony.
Thus, the meek shall inherit the earth.
Hannity just ripped the spokesman apart bigtime
ping to my FRiends.
Hannity: "SHOULD a woman be able to have an abortion at 6 months just because she wants it."
David: "Yes."
if the state not the state if the state if the law etc etc and 7 months--well--if if if if
"Fringe groups": any group who might oppose abortion in any case, who would impudently deign to consider the reality of life in the balance.
For all the shrill rhetoric about "anti-choice" extermists, the only position more extreme than NARAL's is mandatory abortion ala the Chinese policy.
If I were a liberal talking to a conservative talkshow host, I'd definitely want Hannity because he gives you a chance to get your say out there before ripping you apart limb from limb.
You know, a lot of people I meet deny any such thing is happening in China...or haven't even heard of it.
Girl: Well what if someone forced you to have abortions?
Me: Sounds like Communist China.
Girl: The cold war's over!
Then about five people asking me why I thought China forced anyone to have abortions and demanding sources because, "They can't possibly be doing something like that, it isn't legal!"
I was still laughing over the cold war comment....
Ah, public school education... ya can't beat it :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.