Naral is a one issue group.
For Naral, Roberts brief in the Bray case was
sleeping with the enemy.They will grant him no slack.
The defendants in the Bray case included violent anti-choice activists Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue; Michael Bray, who had been convicted for his involvement in 10 bombings at health centers in the 1980s; and Patrick Mahoney, a consultant to Operation Rescue.
. . . [Nancy Keenan said] I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence.
. But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.”
WOOF - 06:08pm on 08/08/2005
So, how exactly does NARAL ‘smear’ Roberts here, Rob?
By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?
By simply (and factually) linking Roberts to these embarrassing, violent extremists constitute a ‘smear’?
that colored fella - 12:08am on 08/09/2005
I do not see the smear either however I love pro-abortion anti-abortion part of the post. Gotta get the labels out...How about pro-choice, anti-choice or pro-killing, anti-killing.
richard - 03:08am on 08/09/2005
How about pro-choice, anti-choice or pro-killing, anti-killing.
Because pro-abortion and anti-abortion are accurate.
V the K - 08:08am on 08/09/2005
By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?
Rudolph bombed the clinic referred to in the NARAL ad eight years after Roberts wrote his brief.
For your statement to be accurate, Roberts is either clairvoyant or has a time machine.
Sue Dohnim - 09:08am on 08/09/2005
WOOF quotes:
But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.
Technically, he wasn’t convicted of “a string of bombing”, but rather of conspiracy and of unlawful possession of explosives. Doesn’t make him a nice guy by any means, but it’s useful to get the facts right.
Carrick - 10:08am on 08/09/2005
By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?
By your logic, it would be just as “accurate” to say that everyone who opposes the Patriot Act approves of the 9-11 Terror Attacks.
Just because one criticizes the law used to prosecute criminal behavior does not mean one condones the behavior.
V the K - 10:08am on 08/09/2005
that colored fella said, By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?
Another way (and more accurate in a lot of respects) of looking at it: Roberts wrote a supportive brief upholding the law.
By simply (and factually) linking Roberts to these embarrassing, violent extremists constitute a ’smear’?
When that “factually” linking omits the very reason for the brief, then it is a smear.
likwidshoe - 01:08pm on 08/09/2005
TCF got it right Sue Dohnim.
The defendants in the Bray case included violent anti-choice activists Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue; Michael Bray, who had been convicted for his involvement in 10 bombings at health centers in the 1980s;
Naral is a one issue group.
For Naral, Roberts brief in the Bray case was
sleeping with the enemy.They will grant him no slack.
So, how exactly does NARAL ‘smear’ Roberts here, Rob?
By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?
By simply (and factually) linking Roberts to these embarrassing, violent extremists constitute a ‘smear’?
I do not see the smear either however I love pro-abortion anti-abortion part of the post. Gotta get the labels out...How about pro-choice, anti-choice or pro-killing, anti-killing.
How about pro-choice, anti-choice or pro-killing, anti-killing.
Because pro-abortion and anti-abortion are accurate.
Rudolph bombed the clinic referred to in the NARAL ad eight years after Roberts wrote his brief.
For your statement to be accurate, Roberts is either clairvoyant or has a time machine.
WOOF quotes:
Technically, he wasn’t convicted of “a string of bombing”, but rather of conspiracy and of unlawful possession of explosives. Doesn’t make him a nice guy by any means, but it’s useful to get the facts right.
By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?
By your logic, it would be just as “accurate” to say that everyone who opposes the Patriot Act approves of the 9-11 Terror Attacks.
Just because one criticizes the law used to prosecute criminal behavior does not mean one condones the behavior.
that colored fella said, By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?
Another way (and more accurate in a lot of respects) of looking at it: Roberts wrote a supportive brief upholding the law.
By simply (and factually) linking Roberts to these embarrassing, violent extremists constitute a ’smear’?
When that “factually” linking omits the very reason for the brief, then it is a smear.
TCF got it right Sue Dohnim.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/20050808_roberts_ad.cfm
NARAL lied and “that colored fella” repeated the lie and never questioned that it was a lie.
The lie is that Roberts wrote a brief supporting a convicted abortion clinic bomber.
Roberts wrote his brief in 1990.
The bombing occurred in 1998.
Do not argue logic with “that colored fella.” He is immune to logic, as is amply demonstrated by his mindless parrotting of NARAL lies.