# NARAL...taking the low road. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 10, 2005, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431 "2005-08-10T12:55:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/21 "2005-08-10T16:07:34Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > The article says that Roberts sided with bomber on the civil rights issue 7 years before the bombing in question. Were there previous bombings this guy did? The anti-abortionists have a long history of using terror: [Abortion Clinic Violence](http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/) > [@](#): > > There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994, with four people killed in 1994 and one in 1993, according to statistics from the National Abortion Federation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has logged 167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years. In 1984, there were 18 bombings against abortion clinics. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/22 "2005-08-10T16:09:12Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > The anti-abortionists have a long history of using terror: > [Abortion Clinic Violence](http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/) That ain’t what **Revtim** asked. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/23 "2005-08-10T16:10:55Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > The anti-abortionists have a long history of using terror: > [Abortion Clinic Violence](http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/) That’s certainly reprehensible… but it doesn’t mean that clinics had a right to use that particular federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who attempted blockades - does it? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/24 "2005-08-10T16:17:45Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > That ain’t what **Revtim** asked. That’s because he asked the wrong question. Is it only Muhammad Atta and his immediate friends that makes al qaeda a terrorist organization, or is it the whole history of the organization? Do you deny that the clinic protestors have a long history of using terror? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/25 "2005-08-10T16:24:35Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > That’s because he asked the wrong question. Is it only Muhammad Atta and his immediate friends that makes al qaeda a terrorist organization, or is it the whole history of the organization? Do you deny that the clinic protestors have a long history of using terror? Actually, the right question might be “does supporting one of the legal issues raised by terrorists mean you are supporting terrorists?” I.e., does the ACLU and many on the SDMB support terrorists because of their positions regarding the Gitmo prisoners? Maybe we need to agree on what constitutes “supporting terrorists”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/26 "2005-08-10T16:25:55Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > That’s because he asked the wrong question. Is it only Muhammad Atta and his immediate friends that makes al qaeda a terrorist organization, or is it the whole history of the organization? Do you deny that the clinic protestors have a long history of using terror? Gads, but you’re dense. Sure, they’re a terrorist organization. I’ll say it explicitly. Likewise the KKK, likewise al-Qaida. That doesn’t mean a government may impinge upon their free speech or free assembly rights when opposing them. They certainly may oppose them, but must do so within a legal and constitutional framework. Perhaps it’s been a while since you’ve actually read the First Amendment. You might want to check it out now, since there’s an awful lot of stuff in these few short sentences, much of it directly applicable to this case: > [@](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; **or the right of the people peaceably to assemble** , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/27 "2005-08-10T16:40:34Z")
Typical disgusting tactics from the NARAL loons. Wish I could say I was surprised, but this is par for the course from the far-left wingnuts. I would say they have damaged their credibility, but you have to have credibility before it can be damaged. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/28 "2005-08-10T16:45:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s certainly reprehensible… but it doesn’t mean that clinics had a right to use that particular federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who attempted blockades - does it? No, of _course_ the Administration was merely interested in seeing that the Constitution is strictly upheld and that no law is used improperly, solely on the basis of upholding the Constitution, and Strict Construction, and… Or, to take the non-Alice-in-Wonderland tack, Roberts was a participant in an Administration effort to make it more difficult to crack down on protesters blockading clinics, thus helping to deny women seeking abortion their constitutionally protected right to same. Roberts was not promoting violence, just effectively acting to protect behavior that a couple of Supreme Court justices thought represented mob violence or the threat of it. Hard to put all that into a 30-second ad, but NARAL certainly could have done a better job of it. Any of those morally outraged at the NARAL ad care to comment on the Spectator’s linking NARAL to the spreading of rumors about Roberts’ sexual orientation? Any evidence to that effect aside from a quote from Mr. Anonymous? Anybody? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/29 "2005-08-10T16:46:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually, the right question might be “does supporting one of the legal issues raised by terrorists mean you are supporting terrorists?” I.e., does the ACLU and many on the SDMB support terrorists because of their positions regarding the Gitmo prisoners? Of course thay do. I thought the right had settled that issue long ago. Surely you can’t be suggesting that now that that slant hurts you it shouldn’t be used? Having created the dialog of the day, you _must_ live with it. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/30 "2005-08-10T16:48:19Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > Wish I could say I was surprised, but this is par for the course from the far-left wingnuts. It’s par for the course for _all_ wingnuts. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/31 "2005-08-10T17:15:03Z")
You know, Metacom, I’m beginning to find you strangely attractive. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/32 "2005-08-10T17:23:24Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > It’s par for the course for _all_ wingnuts. As the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign showed, it’s also a political fact of life in Bush’s America. Sticking to strict factualism, and NOT addressing the larger moral issues is the political equivalent of stumbling into a gunfight with your pants bunched arouned your ankles. Even **Mr. Moto** admits that they’re a terrorist organization. Thanks to NARAL, there’s now a chance that the american people will come to _know_ that. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/33 "2005-08-10T17:24:11Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > So, other than Robert’s support for terrorists and terrorist organizations, he doesn’t support terrorists. Thanks for the heads up **beagledave** , I fear that subtlety may have been missed by a few who’ve gotten too involved in the “with us or against us” movement. It’s been pointed out by others…but since you’re referring to my cite, FUCK YOU for deliberating taking that phrase out of context by not including the rest of the sentence (and the follow up sentence). Dishonest much? I think you’d feel right at home with NARAL’s (or the Swifties) ad campaign. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/34 "2005-08-10T17:27:03Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Even **Mr. Moto** admits that they’re a terrorist organization. Thanks to NARAL, there’s now a chance that the american people will come to _know_ that. Snicker. Yeah because the purpose of the ad is to edumacate us ignorant folk that there are advocacy groups that use violence and terror. I DID NOT KNOW THAT, THANKS NARAL!!! It sure couldn’t be designed to throw lies and mud at a SCOTUS candidate. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/35 "2005-08-10T17:28:50Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > That’d be the believability that won them the most recent presidential election? Perhaps I missed it, what with my busy social calendar, but what election did the Swifties win? Because as I recall, Bush won the election. Are you trying to claim _his_ win to justify _their_ lies? Sounds sorta spotty to me, but to each his own. Waste ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/36 "2005-08-10T17:29:37Z")
I don’t understand what NARAL’s trying to accomplish. Do they think if they can block Roberts, Bush will appoint a strongly pro-choice judge? Granted that Bush might try for an O’Conner type pragmatist, but he might also appoint someone really extreme–Janice Brown, for instance. Roberts is going to be confirmed. NARAL needs to learn how to choose their battles. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/37 "2005-08-10T17:29:55Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > As the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign showed, it’s also a political fact of life in Bush’s America. Sticking to strict factualism, and NOT addressing the larger moral issues is the political equivalent of stumbling into a gunfight with your pants bunched arouned your ankles. > Even **Mr. Moto** admits that they’re a terrorist organization. Thanks to NARAL, there’s now a chance that the american people will come to _know_ that. So you support NARAL’s tactics in this instance? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/38 "2005-08-10T17:35:27Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Even **Mr. Moto** admits that they’re a terrorist organization. Thanks to NARAL, there’s now a chance that the american people will come to _know_ that. You say that as if there was ever a chance I wouldn’t describe clinic bombers as such. If you wondered about this at all, you don’t understand me or my politics one bit. I’m curious about this thanks you’re giving to NARAL, too. You seem to be saying that these tactics that they’ve engaged in as of late, though untruthful and roundly denounced by nearly everybody here, are justifies in some sense because they serve a greater good, in your opinion. If the ends justify the means, you can justify some pretty disgusting things. NARAL has shown that, and you are defending them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/39 "2005-08-10T17:38:11Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > I don’t understand what NARAL’s trying to accomplish. Do they think if they can block Roberts, Bush will appoint a strongly pro-choice judge? Granted that Bush might try for an O’Conner type pragmatist, but he might also appoint someone really extreme–Janice Brown, for instance. > > Roberts is going to be confirmed. NARAL needs to learn how to choose their battles. Yeah, WTF? It makes no sense. The only rational reason is they just want to muddy the waters and hope that some of the shit sticks somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431/40 "2005-08-10T17:39:51Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > That’s because he asked the wrong question. Is it only Muhammad Atta and his immediate friends that makes al qaeda a terrorist organization, or is it the whole history of the organization? Do you deny that the clinic protestors have a long history of using terror? I asked the _right_ question, because it described exactly what I was curious about. If you felt like making a comment that was not the answer to my question, you shouldn’t have quoted me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naral-taking-the-low-road/316431.md?page=3)