Bush v. Choice
Disclaimer About Jessica NARAL Pro-Choice America Contact Us

« Spotlight on Wisconsin | Main | Florida clinic reopens after fire »

August 12, 2005

NARAL changes ad campaign

In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan reveals a change in the organization's much-talked about ad campaign:

We sincerely share your hope that the upcoming Senate hearings will be a fair, thorough and serious examination of John Roberts’ legal philosophy and his views on significant constitutional issues. We also regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts’ record.

This week, we began a television advertising campaign aimed at focusing greater public attention on an important aspect of Mr. Roberts’ record. Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public.

Therefore, we are changing from our current advertisement to one that examines Mr. Roberts’ record on several points, including his advocacy for overturning Roe v. Wade, his statement questioning the right to privacy, and his arguments against using a federal civil rights law to protect women and their doctors and nurses from those who use blockades and intimidation.

NARAL stands behind the original ad, but when people and talking about an organization when they should be talking about a potential lifetime appointment something’s gotta give. It’s just too bad that people need a reminder like this to focus on what’s really important.

So let’s get back to work!

Posted by Jessica at August 12, 2005 10:30 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


I had no problem whatsoever with NARAL's tactics. Those decrying the group as being too single-issue in a movement world are obviously oblivious to the successes of the NRA, as others have pointed out. Being a man, I know that I've got no right to tell a woman what to do with her uterus as a woman would with my prostate. But everyone doesn't seem to have a problem telling the women to shut up and be polite on this issue? Why? Like being nice has gotten us anything other than our ass kicked. It's bad enough when Republicans do the kicking. But when we do it, it's even worse. Like I've said before, if we don't fight for women, who will?

And something else I just thought of while I'm hot about this: This reminds me of the crap myself and others took for calling the assfaced Senators not cosponsoring the lynching apology pro-lynching. Sure, they probably weren't in favor of lynching, but their tacit support for such hate crimes represents the same look-the-other-way mentality we're seeing with Roberts and highlighted by NARAL.

Posted by: Joseph Hughes at August 12, 2005 12:40 PM

NARAL and the rest should give up on Roberts. He is the best we can expect to get from Bush. According to our system of government as it presently stands, the people elect the President and Senate, who choose the Justice. The Supreme Court and Roe in particular were widely discussed issues in the last round of national elections, and Bush and the GOP won. I'm not going to whine about it, I'm working on moving forward so my party (the Democrats) can win the next election. Meanwhile, according to my own evaluation, Roberts is a qualified Justice who will be confirmed. Frankly, I expect him to vote to overturn Roe when it comes up. I am pro-choice, and I think Roe established a good compromise policy from a practical viewpoint, but the legal reasoning of that opinion is not well founded and if I were a Justice I might throw it out myself. I do expect the USA to lose Roe v. Wade, which will not make any abortion illegal. It will create the opportunity for a massive nationwide 50-state legislative battle over abortion that will consume every assembly. NARAL is wasting its money on Washington, DC. The states are where the action is going to have to be. Get ready.

Gareth Fenley
Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Posted by: Gareth Fenley at August 12, 2005 8:49 PM

Abortion is and always will be a tough issue for the American public, but this does not excuse censorship. Discussing these views may be unpopular, but this is a life-time appointment, and a candidate for the High Court simply cannot claim to be opinonless about such a critical issue. I realize Roberts was in a position of counsel for the Bray case. At the same time, an amicus brief is an advocacy position, albeit his client was the federal government, but this was a partisan appointment on a key policy issue. And people were seriously injured during a violent hate crime. The government should be supporting women's rights to make independent decisions, and this includes identifying violent criminal behavior as such. I'm aware of Roberts citing Roe as "settled law," but Roe is too young and subject to controversy (i.e., each case invokes different issues and tests laws on all levels) for the "settled" description to solidify as other laws sometimes have. And if he truly views Roe as "settled," he should be able to own up to it by previous rulings. The fact is his previous positions are anti-choice. Bray is important: it's a civil rights case and a matter of medical privacy. We must maintain Roe!

Posted by: prochoice4ever at August 15, 2005 12:07 AM

Abortion is only a tough issue for those that continue to post flamatory comments in response to the very persons most concerned with the issues. How dare you respond with statistics when a woman's personal condition is of paramount importance? I do not give a rat's ass in regards to what is politically correct for the personal woman. You jackalls have to come to terms in the respect that women are imminently cabable of deciding for themsevles what is right or wrong in regard of what should be her own personal choice. What gives you the right to dictate those terms to a woman?

Posted by: robert at August 16, 2005 5:36 AM