Call me irresponsible
By Diogenes (articles ) | Aug 11, 2005
Is it possible for a major pro-abortion group to become so completely irresponsible that it loses credibility even with the pro-abortion mass media?
NARAL, the militant voice of the abortion industry, is testing the limits with a new ad condemning Judge John Roberts. The ad makes the claim that Roberts defended violent attacks on abortion clinics-- a claim that no reasonable person could make.
But don't take our word for it. Factcheck.org, a non-partisan group that monitors political ads, flatly condemns the NARAL ad as "false."
National Public Radio-- not ordinarily considered a pro-life outlet-- passed along the Factcheck judgment without comment. Even Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times reporter who marches in pro-abortion demonstrations (and still, incredibly, has the assignment to cover Supreme Court abortion debates), can't describe the NARAL ad without mentioning the complaints.
Greenhouse gives the last word to Frances Kissling of "Catholics" for a Free Choice, who-- although she makes her living by distorting the facts about abortion and about Catholicism-- is "deeply upset and offended" by the falsehoods. When pro-abortion propaganda is rabid enough to offend Frances Kissling, you know we're approaching the outer limits.
So now the questions are:
- Will major media outlets cease to treat NARAL as a respected news source?
- Will media outlets refuse to carry the ad, on grounds that it is simply wrong?
- Will the "responsible" pro-abortion groups pressure NARAL to remove the ad?
- Will leading Democrats continue to attend NARAL fundraising dinners? and finally
- How long would a pro-life organization remain open for business after making a comparably irresponsible public statement? (Give your answer in minutes.)
Update NARAL has withdrawn the ad, the Associated Press reports, "After protests from conservatives...."
Conservatives like Frances Kissling?
Think about it: Would a pro-abortion group ever withdraw an ad because of "protests from conservatives?" Would the Green Bay Packers stop blitzing the quarterback because the Chicago Bears didn't like it?
No. NARAL pulled the ad because their own ideological allies were offended, and their extremism was exposed. But AP is still protecting the pro-abortion lobby, by pretending that the outrage was purely partisan.
Question: What do you call someone who objects to a grossly inaccurate ad by a pro-abortion group? Answer: A conservative.
See the point? If a group endorses legal abortion, then the only possible reason for objecting to their work is ideological prejudice.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our year-end goal ($62,263 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Aug. 15, 2005 11:05 AM ET USA
Just a note on the NPR story -- while they reported FactCheck.org's info with no comment, they alsor ran the entire ad without any comment and that was much longer than the attention they paid to FactCheck.org. Plus the comments from the FactCheck rep were edited in such a way as to give no substance to what he was saying -- one was left to wonder why FactCheck said what they said.
Posted by: Fr. William -
Aug. 11, 2005 7:12 PM ET USA
1. No, but we hope they will cease to treat NARAL with any respect. 2. Probably not, but let's hope they refuse. 3. Let's pray for this. 4. Of course they will... unless they can overcome their greed. 5. Less than 1,140 minutes (24 hours).
Posted by: parochus -
Aug. 11, 2005 4:03 PM ET USA
And our survey says ........ (X)