Pro-choicers going off their NUT about Roberts

At first I just thought it was an irritating war on free speech that was being waged by pro-choicers around abortion clinics (the most protected and priviledged space in the world next to Federal buildings).

But now? A terrorist? Oh God, PLEASE...

Here's a deal... I'll call it even if we accuse all attorneys for Earth First! of condoning violence. How about that?




http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050809/ts_usatoday/adsaysrobertstiedtoclinicviolence

Ad says Roberts tied to clinic violence


By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY Tue Aug 9, 7:10 AM ET

The first TV ad opposing federal Judge John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court ignited controversy Monday by accusing him of supporting violent anti-abortion "fringe groups" in a case before the court in 1991.

The allegation was made by NARAL Pro-Choice America, the nation's leading abortion-rights group. It stemmed from a case Roberts argued on behalf of the first Bush administration as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. Roberts successfully argued that a federal civil rights law should not be used to prevent anti-abortion protesters from blocking access to women's clinics.

Sean Rushton, executive director of Committee for Justice, a group that backs Roberts, said the ad means "the far left will say or do anything to block John Roberts' confirmation, no matter how far they have to twist the facts."

NARAL's ad will begin running Wednesday on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and a few local stations. NARAL said it will spend $500,000 to broadcast the 30-second ad between now and Roberts' confirmation hearing, which begins Sept. 6.

The ad follows a quiet several weeks for groups that had prepared for an intense battle over
President Bush's choice to succeed retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.

Progress for America, a conservative group that supports the nomination, spent $1 million to broadcast a positive biographical ad about Roberts for 10 days. Otherwise, both sides have focused mostly on organizing efforts, fundraising and other tasks.

Abortion is likely to be a key issue in Roberts' hearing because O'Connor is among six justices on the nine-member court who have supported abortion rights. Progress for America and other conservative groups pressured the White House to replace her with someone who would oppose abortion rights. They have expressed satisfaction with Roberts, even though his record as a government lawyer, a private attorney and a federal judge offers few clues about his true feelings on the issue.

NARAL's ad focuses on Roberts' work in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Clinic. In that case, the court voted 6-3 against a Virginia clinic and others that said the group Operation Rescue had denied women their right to abortions by blocking access to clinics. (O'Connor was among the three dissenters.)

The clinics wanted to use an 1871 civil rights law to make women a protected "class" of citizens who were under threat from clinic blockades. The clinics also accused Operation Rescue of encouraging those behind "hundreds of acts of violence," including 48 bombings, at clinics.

Roberts argued that it would be wrong to use that law against Operation Rescue. The law initially was designed to protect ex-slaves from Ku Klux Klan harassment. The first Bush administration said applying the law could violate protesters' speech rights.

NARAL President Nancy Keenan said her group isn't saying Roberts condoned the bombing of clinics. She said, however, that Roberts, through his arguments, essentially supported bombers.

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, called NARAL's claims "false and outrageous."

Brian McCabe of Progress for America repeated a position that he and other Roberts supporters have made: that as a lawyer, Roberts was obligated to argue for his "client," the president, in cases such as the one singled out by NARAL.

NARAL is a fucked group. I don't agree one idoda with the politics of planned parenthood, at least they seem concerned with helping a person make the right choice for them. NARAL thinks it's a terrible thing NOT to have an abortion.

I feel seriously bad for the people who actually waste their time standing in front of abortion clinics telling other people how wrong they are. what sick fucks.

I went with a religious group one time to help out a women's shelter that was right next to a women's clinic where abortions were performed. people had their kids out there shouting and holding signs and stuff. I felt SO bad for those kids.

isthisdesire said:

I feel seriously bad for the people who actually waste their time standing in front of abortion clinics telling other people how wrong they are. what sick fucks.

I went with a religious group one time to help out a women's shelter that was right next to a women's clinic where abortions were performed. people had their kids out there shouting and holding signs and stuff. I felt SO bad for those kids.

Click to expand...

The antics of abortion protestors are shitty, to say the least.

But political protest often involves standing in front of an establishment and making noise. If we start outlawing that then eventually you come to a point where you can't even protest around the GOP Convention.

Oops, that's already happened.........

They know they can't stop Roberts, so this is about fund raising. Just like the Senate hearings will be a show so individual Senators can establish their bona fides by supporting/opposing his nomination. In the end, outside of the old politcal axiom about not being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, he will be confirmed.

Roe v Wade may very weell be overturned at some point. It is a patently ridiculous claim to say that anyone has complete and unfettered control of their body. This is no more true of men than it is women. If, during times of national emergency (real or perceived) they can draft your butt and send you to places where people will earnestly try to kill you, then limiting your ability to choose an abortion is a possibility.

The Court, however, should only support such an idea if someone can actually prove that another human life is involved. Someone's faith that this is true, even a majority's faith that this is true, is not a good enough reason. Otherwise, Hindu's could shut down cattle raising and butchering because they believe the animal is sacred.

Personally I'm opposed to abortion. I just see no legal way to force someone to adhere to my beliefs, nor should there be a way to do that. The Court would go a long way by recognizing that for that exact reason, not some fantasy of a unfettered right of control over your own body. Of course, this would be a blow to both right and left, actually having to prove your assertions in order to interfere in someone's life.

it's seriously bad when protesting escalates into violence.
i had an abortion in 1988, and while being assisted out to the car by my husband afterwards, i was beaten to a pulp by anti-abortionists wielding 2by4's and metal starpickets.
my injuries were serious enough to land me in hospital for 3 weeks afterwards.

they should all be arrested.
but they never are

warrior queen said:

it's seriously bad when protesting escalates into violence.
i had an abortion in 1988, and while being assisted out to the car by my husband afterwards, i was beaten to a pulp by anti-abortionists wielding 2by4's and metal starpickets.
my injuries were serious enough to land me in hospital for 3 weeks afterwards.

they should all be arrested.
but they never are

Click to expand...

Beatings at abortion clinics are acts of terrorism. People who do that should be put in prison. But all the protests around the country shouldn't be treated like terrorists any more than all the Mosques should be. That's what Republicans do - if five are guilty than all are guilty.

bigcpl4fun said:

They know they can't stop Roberts, so this is about fund raising. Just like the Senate hearings will be a show so individual Senators can establish their bona fides by supporting/opposing his nomination. In the end, outside of the old politcal axiom about not being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, he will be confirmed.

Roe v Wade may very weell be overturned at some point. It is a patently ridiculous claim to say that anyone has complete and unfettered control of their body. This is no more true of men than it is women. If, during times of national emergency (real or perceived) they can draft your butt and send you to places where people will earnestly try to kill you, then limiting your ability to choose an abortion is a possibility.

The Court, however, should only support such an idea if someone can actually prove that another human life is involved. Someone's faith that this is true, even a majority's faith that this is true, is not a good enough reason. Otherwise, Hindu's could shut down cattle raising and butchering because they believe the animal is sacred.

Personally I'm opposed to abortion. I just see no legal way to force someone to adhere to my beliefs, nor should there be a way to do that. The Court would go a long way by recognizing that for that exact reason, not some fantasy of a unfettered right of control over your own body. Of course, this would be a blow to both right and left, actually having to prove your assertions in order to interfere in someone's life.

Click to expand...

Well said. Especially about the fearmongering re: Roberts.

There are plenty of legit reasons not to put him in office.