August 10, 2005
I'm in a conference call with the president of NARAL
by Liza Sabater
If you could ask any question to the president of NARAL, what would you ask? If
I am going to be on a conference call with the president of NARAL and some other women bloggers in about an hour. I definitely want to hear what you would like to ask and/or tell her. I will be live-blogging as much as possible but would like to communicate what people in the netroots are talking about them; especially at DailyKos.
I will leave it iat this because I want you to talk.
Let it rip!
Posted by Liza Sabater in Abortion, Activism, Advertising, Feminism, Media, Reproductive Rights, SCOTUS, Sexual Politics, Supreme Court
Permalink |
Comments (4)
| TrackBack (0) | Technorati Cosmos
Trackbacks
Trackback for this post:http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/3146
The following blogs make reference to this post :
Say it loud, say it proud!
I would ask her why NARAL felt the need to run an utterly deceptive ad in opposition to the Roberts nomination. I am pro-choice but the ad is completely misleading and I have very little trust in the organization now because of it. I say this with all due respect -- I am just honestly wondering why they ran it.
2
Comment by: liza at August 10, 2005 06:37 PM
Why do you think it is deceptive? Are they not telling the truth or are they being selective about what they are saying?
3
Comment by: Jeff at August 10, 2005 06:37 PM
I'm kind of curious about coalition work. With the wide ranging attacks on privacy (trying to remove Griswold), what kinds of other organizations is NARAL working with? Are the coalitions ad hoc or more based in building a sustainable multi-issue movement?
4
Comment by: Andy at August 10, 2005 06:48 PM
Hi Liza,
I can't put it any better than Annenberg Political FactCheck:
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.
Whole article is here.
1
Comment by: Andy at August 10, 2005 06:34 PM