Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report Summarizes Opinion Pieces on NARAL Pro-Choice America Ad Criticizing Roberts
Boston Herald: Although it is "a virtual certainty" that Roberts will be confirmed, "[h]aving sacrificed what remains of its credibility, NARAL [Pro-Choice America]'s future is much less certain," a Herald editorial says (Boston Herald, 8/12).
Indianapolis Star: "Perhaps ... Roberts' supporters can take a degree of comfort in the NARAL [Pro-Choice America] ad," a Star editorial says, concluding, "If such obvious distortions are all the nominee's enemies can come up with after three weeks of digging, his confirmation would appear all but certain" (Indianapolis Star, 8/12).
New York Post: NARAL Pro-Choice America's ad "blatantly misrepresent[s] what [Roberts] stands for" and is "ridiculous" and "ugly," a Post editorial says, concluding that the group "has crossed the line of political discourse and transparently lied about Roberts' position" (New York Post, 8/11).
Orlando Sentinel: The NARAL Pro-Choice America ad criticizing Roberts is "more about playing to political extremists for future elections than installing a qualified Supreme Court justice," an Orlando Sentinel editorial says. U.S. senators of both political parties "should see through this and limit their debate to Mr. Roberts' qualifications," the Sentinel concludes (Orlando Sentinel, 8/12).
Philadelphia Inquirer: "American political and civil discourse has been poisoned" by ads such as NARAL Pro-Choice America's ad criticizing Roberts and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's ads criticizing former presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the Inquirer says, concluding that "[g]roups on both sides of the Roberts nomination need to move beyond vying to be the best practitioners of this bad tradition" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/12).
St. Petersburg Times: "There certainly are reasons for supporters of abortion rights to be concerned about Roberts, not the least of which is that the president who selected him is opposed to legalized abortion," a Times editorial says, concluding that "linking [Roberts] to people who bomb abortion clinics will not sway public opinion against Roberts as much as against the irresponsible messenger" (St. Petersburg Times, 8/12).
Wall Street Journal: NARAL Pro-Choice America's "vicious" ad "practically screams: We're so desperate to find something to pin on John Roberts that we're not above making things up," a Journal editorial says, concluding, "If this is a foretaste of the Roberts' confirmation, better lay in the Listerine" (Wall Street Journal, 8/10).
Washington Post: NARAL Pro-Choice America "is certainly within its rights to disagree with the position the government took" in the Bray case, a Post editorial says. However, "the impression it creates with this ad is not an argument but a smear-- a smear that will do less to discredit Judge Roberts than it will the organization that created it," the Post concludes (Washington Post, 8/12).
Washington Times: NARAL Pro-Choice America's ad "deliberately distorted Judge Roberts' legal opinion -- and badly," a Times editorial says, adding that Roberts in his friend-of-the-court brief "did not condone or excuse protesters committing acts of violence" (Washington Times, 8/11).
Opinion Piece
Jonathan Chait, Los Angeles Times: NARAL Pro-Choice America's "highly misleading" attempt to "sink Roberts' nomination is utterly harebrained" because he will be confirmed, "probably by an overwhelming margin," columnist Chait writes in a Times opinion piece (Chait, Los Angeles Times, 8/12).
E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: Although NARAL Pro-Choice America has "every right to disagree with the stand that Roberts and the first Bush administration" took on the Bray case, the group's ad is "outrageous," columnist Dionne writes in a Post opinion piece, adding that the "over-the-top suggestion that Roberts is someone who would 'excuse violence against other Americans' is a distraction from the core issues surrounding his nomination" (Dionne, Washington Post, 8/12).
Scot Lehigh, Boston Globe: If NARAL Pro-Choice America "wants to oppose Roberts because it fears he may become part of an antiabortion majority, that is its prerogative, though it's highly unrealistic for liberals to expect that they are going to get a nominee who explicitly commits to supporting abortio[n] rights," columnist Lehigh writes in a Globe opinion piece. However, "it is fundamentally wrong to portray Roberts as [a] man who has excused violence against other Americans or who somehow offered legal support in a clinic bombing case," as the ad "obviously" tries to do, according to Lehigh (Lehigh, Boston Globe, 8/12).
Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times: NARAL Pro-Choice America's "vicious attack" on Roberts "was not really a desperate effort to defeat him against overwhelming odds" but "is part of an intricate game that not only determines the occupant of one seat on the Supreme Court but can set its ideological course for the next generation," columnist Novak writes in a Sun-Times opinion piece. The ad "was not meant to sway the Senate" but was intended to influence President Bush and his advisers to choose a more moderate candidate for the next Supreme Court candidacy, Novak says (Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, 8/11).
Jim Spencer, Denver Post: Although NARAL Pro-Choice America's original ad is "misleading," women who "want to control their bodies had better pay close attention" because "Roberts' likely appointment makes Roe v. Wade anything but settled," columnist Spencer writes in a Post opinion piece. "The Supreme Court is deadlocked on the matter of abortion rights. And a judge who doesn't think that blocking access to abortion facilitates discriminates against women is just the kind to tip the scales," Spencer writes (Spencer, Denver Post, 8/12).
NARAL Pro-Choice America
"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Kaiser Daily Sãnãtatea reproducerii Raport rezumã Aviz Piesele de pe NARAL Pro-Choice America anunt critica Roberts - Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report Summarizes Opinion Pieces on NARAL Pro-Choice America Ad Criticizing Roberts - articole medicale engleza - startsanatate