Washington, DC – NARAL Pro-Choice America, the nation’s leading advocate for personal privacy and a woman’s right to choose, launched a nationwide television ad campaign drawing attention to one of the most disturbing episodes in Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ career – the brief he filed siding with groups like Operation Rescue and other anti-choice extremists who use bombings and other forms of intimidation against women, doctors, and nurses at women's health clinics.
“We believe in a culture of personal freedom and personal responsibility. As an advocacy organization, it is our job to let the American people know that John Roberts’s record demonstrates hostility toward these core values,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “This ad showing a disturbing part of Roberts’ record is even more important since the White House decided to withhold critical information about Roberts from the public.”
Video the ad available at the link above.
Of course, NARAL couldn't be more misleading about this issue. Visible in the ad is a document from the court case in question showing that it is Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, which was a case filed by pro-abortion advocates to stop anti-abortion activists from blocking the entrance to abortion clinics. In that case Roberts filed a brief contending that the law being used as a basis for the case filed by the pro-abortion activists (the Ku Klux Klan act of 1871) couldn't be applied to anti-abortion protesters. And the Supreme Court agreed with him.
This is the gist of the ruling:
Respondents have not shown that opposition to abortion qualifies alongside race discrimination as an "otherwise class based, invidiously discriminatory animus [underlying] the conspirators' action," as is required under Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, in order to prove a private conspiracy in violation of § 1985(3)'s first clause. Respondents' claim that petitioners' opposition to abortion reflects an animus against women in general must be rejected. The "animus" requirement demands at least a purpose that focuses upon women by reason of their sex, whereas the record indicates that petitioners' demonstrations are not directed specifically at women, but are intended to protect the victims of abortion, stop its practice, and reverse its legalization. Opposition to abortion cannot reasonably be presumed to reflect a sex based intent; there are common and respectable reasons for opposing abortion other than a derogatory view of women as a class. This Court's prior decisions indicate that the disfavoring of abortion, although only women engage in the activity, is not ipso facto invidious discrimination against women as a class.
In short, it was ruled that a law intended to protect against racial or sex-based discrimination can't be applied to a situation that does not include that sort of discrimination. Later, Congress passed a law specifically addressing anti-abortion protesters and the matter was solved.
In short, Roberts applied the law correctly. As he is supposed to.
Shame on NARAL for such a blatant attempt to mislead the public, especially in such a way as to cast heavy aspersion on Roberts' character.