Where Are the “Experts” Today?
An article in this morning’s L.A. Times is titled Ad Attacks Roberts’ Role in Clinic Case. It reports on that disgusting NARAL ad I told you about last night.
The ad features a woman who was injured in a bombing of an abortion clinic. It says: “Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.” The woman who was injured in the bombing says: “I am determined to stop this violence, so I’m speaking out.”
As the Power Line post I linked to explains, the ad is deceptive in the extreme:
No bombing or violence of any kind was at issue in Bray [the Supreme Court case in which Roberts, as a deputy Solicitor General, filed an amicus brief]. Nor was there any question about the legality or propriety of the demonstrations carried out by Operation Rescue; they were plainly illegal under Virginia law.
The post explains that Roberts specifically refused to support the protestors’ illegal actions, but argued (successfully) that a federal law did not apply because opposition to abortion is not the same as gender discrimination. Small wonder the Court agreed; after all, many women oppose abortion. As Power Line says:
So NARAL misrepresents the Bray case in every particular. Roberts didn’t “support violent fringe groups” or a “convicted clinic bomber.” He supported the federal government’s position on a specific question of law–correctly, as the Court found. NARAL’s reference to a “convicted clinic bomber” is especially outrageous. The Bray case had nothing to do with a bombing by Eric Rudolph or anyone else, and Rudolph attacked the Birmingham clinic–the bombing that is referred to in the NARAL ad–eight years after Roberts wrote the brief on the Section 1985(3) issues.
For NARAL to suggest that John Roberts has ever done anything to support violence against abortion clinics (or anything else) is so far outside the bounds of civilized debate that one can hope that, even in today’s far-gone Democratic Party, sane voices will be raised to denounce NARAL’s advertising campaign.
So I read this morning’s L.A. Times article eagerly, looking for those sane voices. I searched out the quotes from independent experts who would explain how outrageous the ad really is.
But not one independent expert is quoted. The controversy over the ad is portrayed as a “he said, she said” controversy between the White House and pro-abortion activists.
My question is: did they not even approach any experts? Or did they approach them — but not like what all the experts had to say?
As the LA Times sinks ever so slowly into the abyss I ask only: who reads the dam thing any more? Of course they are not going to comment on a paid ad. Had they found it in any way objectionable they would have refused to run it. That ad perfectly represents what is left of their readership; they want to get Roberts at any cost, support abortion on demand at any cost, and elect liberals at any cost. Out here on the Left Coast they are main stream
Howard Veit (baba22) — 8/9/2005 @ 7:20 amEven if experts were interviewed and their testimony was omitted, it’s much less likely that an interviewed-and-ignored expert would surface than it was in September of last year (after the CBS fake-memos story hit.) The rebuttal of the story just doesn’t have the same sensational quality. It’s also a little tougher to sell to the general public, since misrepresentation of a jurisdictional argument and timeline problems aren’t as gripping as visibly fake documents.
Not to say I wouldn’t love to see it.
Bebeaux (b1c210) — 8/9/2005 @ 10:43 amNARAL Lies about Judge Roberts
You wonder what depths people will sink to in order to defeat a nominee they fear will adhere to the written words of the Constitution? Here’s one example.
The Unalienable Right (7a057a) — 8/9/2005 @ 12:33 pmThe pro-abortion group NARAL has produced a despicable ad that blatantly lies about Ju…
Let the scare tactics begin-Update
As an update to this blog entry, where I posted about NARAL’s scare tactics via running a nasty ad against Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts, FactCheck has criticized this ad claiming it leaves the wrong impression
Sister Toldjah (59ce3a) — 8/9/2005 @ 6:03 pmThere’s an interesting theory behind the NARAL advertisement. Given that Mr. Roberts’ brief held the position upheld by a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, his position must have been the one consistent with the law. NARAL is, whether they understand it or not, taking the position that an emotional desire that happens to not be in concert with the law should be advocated by the Solicitor General, and prevail in the Supreme Court.
Well, virtually unrestricted abortion is currently the law of the land. But if NARAL believes that the Solicitor General ought to argue not the law but a desired emotional outcome, then they are saying that the Solicitor General could quite legitimately argue that abortion is unconstitutional and unallowable, simply because he (and his client, the President) feels that way.
I have yet to be persuaded that NOW or NARAL has anyone who actually thinks things through before they react.
Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b) — 8/10/2005 @ 4:54 pm