BCT Editorial – 8/14/05

This page was last updated on August 18, 2005.

Group think; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 14, 2005.

The object of this editorial is to equate two groups that disagree with the nomination of John Roberts. Here’s the problem. One group, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), aired commercials that actually lied about Mr. Roberts’ actions. The other group, Public Advocate, merely opposes Roberts because of his participation in a homosexual rights case.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The nomination of John Roberts to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has brought out the worst in the ideologues in the United States.

“In a television ad, NARAL Pro-Choice America charged that Roberts supported an abortion-clinic bomber and excused violence. However, FactCheck.org, the Annenberg Political Fact Check Web site, reports the following:

“‘An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting ... a convicted clinic bomber’ and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.’ It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Ala.

“‘The ad is false.’

“Among other things, FactCheck.org reported the ad was misleading because it cited a civil case that didn’t deal with the bombing at all.”

“But an organization on the other side of the ideological gap opposes Roberts for another reason - gay rights.”

[RWC] How are homosexual rights “on the other side of the ideological gap” from abortion? Depending on what aspect of homosexual rights you’re talking about, I don’t see how they’re on any “side.”

“The Associated Press reports Public Advocate of the United States has come out against Roberts because of his involvement in a Colorado gay rights case concerning an amendment to the state constitution that was approved by voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.

“Gay rights groups sued, and the U.S. Supreme Court declared the measure unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling in 1996.

“Roberts’ role in the case included helping to develop a strategy and firing tough questions during a mock court session at the attorney who argued the case on behalf of the gay rights plaintiffs.

“Arguments that Roberts’ work on the case does not equal support for gay rights doesn’t wash with Eugene Delgaudio, the president of the Virginia-based group. ‘Nobody’s forced to help your opponents,’ he said. ‘I can’t believe that a senior attorney would voluntarily help somebody he doesn’t agree with. I don’t believe it. It’s not credible.’

“Ideologues like NARAL and Public Advocate ignore the fact that the United States is a big messy place where one ideology does not fit all. The American people - collectively and individually - have opinions, ideas and beliefs that range all over the place.”

[RWC] OK, so what did Public Advocate do wrong? I might not agree with Public Advocate, but they based their position on conclusions they drew from the facts. They did not lie as did NARAL.

“The genius of our founding fathers was that they developed a system of government that took that into account. The problem with ideologues is that these purists do not recognize our diversity, or tolerate it. Heaven help us if they are ever able to impose their group think on America.”

[RWC] We get to the end of this editorial and there’s no mention that NARAL lied but Public Advocate did not. If a group perceived as being conservative had been caught lying, I doubt the Times would have tried to equate that group with a liberal group that did not.