About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

NARAL libels/slanders John Roberts

By Scott Tibbs, August 23, 2005

Earlier this month, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) ran a commercial tying Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to anti-abortion violence. I am late getting to this story, and everything there is to say about this issue has already pretty much been said. However, one cannot expect a philodox like myself to not chime in with my own thoughts.

(You can read more about the story here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and here.)

I amd going to ask a question that will be offensive to some, but needs to be asked anyway. Why should we be surprised that NARAL is lying? The whole reason the organization exists is to further the murder of unborn babies. Lying is not nearly as wicked as the main agenda NARAL advocates.

Not only is NARAL's tactic not new, falsely tying abortion opponents to anti-abortion terrorism it is a common tactic on the extremist fringe of the Left. A freelance writer for the Herald-Times (who is a pro-abortion fanatic) claimed last year that I have "a plethora of sketchy ties with violent, terrorist, anti abortion groups". This, of course, is a complete fabrication, and he was forced to retract it when other Leftists defended me from this false, libelous and malicious personal attack. He would later try to spin his fabrication as an "opinion".

NARAL's venomous attack on Roberts has been thoroughly discredited, so not much more needs to be said. Basically, NARAL claimed Roberts excused anti-abortion violence because he argued that a 19th century law directed at the Ku Klux Klan did not apply to abortion clinic violence. Roberts never supported anti-abortion violence, and NARAL knows it. In fact, Roberts supported aggressive prosecution of anti-abortion terrorists under the proper laws.

Pro-abortion Republican Arlen Specter denounced the NARAL smear, and many supporters of abortion rights, seeing the damage NARAL did to itself (and the sympathy it generated for Roberts) have joined Specter in criticizing NARAL. Wendy McElroy of ifeminists.net is one of those. But McElroy (who is usually quite reasonable) made a glaring error in her column with the following statement:

But dialogue on abortion won't work if only one side extends fairness. Pro-life advocates must come out cleanly and clearly against all forms of violence, especially the bombing of clinics. They should be more insulted and outraged by Rudolph than I am by NARAL.

The fact of the matter is that pro-lifers (including yours truly) have come out on many occasions and denounced anti-abortion violence. For McElroy to imply that pro-lifers have not done so is either dishonest or ignorant. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter.

Despite the fact that NARAL has sunk to a new low, pro-lifers should be encouraged, as the ad shows the desperation in the pro-"choice" ranks. They know that pro-life advocates have made great progress in the hearts and minds of the American people. Furthermore, several states are poised to put limits (some more strict than others) on abortion in the event the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. While overturning Roe v. Wade will not ban abortion, it will send the decision back to the states. The NARAL crows is losing ground, and they know it.