You are missing the reason Miers gave for "being against" the resolution. The reason wasn't because of it's contents. The reason was that she wanted the entire ABA membership to have a vote, instead of just the ABA leadership.
You are missing the historical context. The ABA leadership officially adopted a Pro-Abortion position. Much of the general membership was outraged. The tactic used by the alienated Pro-Life membership in response to the Pro-Abortion leadership was to demand a full vote of all members. This was the "Pro-Life" position in this controversy. You need to understand this.
1,617 posted on 10/03/2005 11:19:57 AM EDT by LikeLight
I likewise think you are making an unwarranted inference, and I explained my rationale for that above. Nothing in your statement illuminates her personal position. She is duty bound to represent the Texas Bar as a whole.
Notice I am not concluding what her position is, either way. I am vigorously asserting thatteh evidence you have provided does not illuminate her personal position. At all. And I think it is dishonest to continue to represnt your point of view as a repeat, without also including my response.
I don't think they WANT to understand it.