NARAL's Overreach on John Roberts
NARAL has a new ad (with discussion on FOX) opposing Judge John Roberts. This ad, which contains a bit more in terms of correct facts (notwithstanding the conclusions reached from them) predictably advocates for the defeat of Judge Roberts. But NARAL may have created an environment that is not conducive to the achievement of its goals, and may have dealt itself a long-term setback.
NARAL is an extremist single issue group which advocates exclusively for unlimited abortion rights, even in the case of the modern-day infanticide known as partial birth abortion. Their stake in this nomination is based in their very correct belief that the courts, not the Constitution, Congress or the state legislatures, have established the right to abortion. And their defense of their right to kill an unborn child for social and economic convenience--a practice that they defend as if it were a religious sacrament--is not limited by ethical or moral considerations any more than abortion itself is based in them.
Their first ad, noted more for its retraction and the circumstances surrounding it than the message it conveyed, cost NARAL some serious credibility points with the public. Accusing Roberts of defending and sympathizing with Eric Rudolph--abortion clinic and Atlanta Olympics bomber--because Roberts represented a pro-life group defending their right to protest abortion clinics (free speech which the "tolerant" left equates to domestic terror). It contained patently untrue and extreme statements that made NARAL, not Roberts, look completely stupid.
So now they put a makeover on the earlier commercial, nonetheless drawing unlikely conclusions. But their continued involvement in this sends a message that perhaps they don't want or intend to convey--that the abortion lobby leaves no room for any disagreement with them.
It should be fairly clear that Roberts has disagreements with the Roe opinion. The reasons for disagreement are many, and many reasonable and respected people do indeed disagree with the reasoning used by the Supreme Court to allow a right to abortion to materialize from the Constitution. And in America, we are allowed to disagree with just about anything we want--just so long as the left disagrees with them too, it seems.
The Constitution makes no reference to "privacy", "reproductive rights", "trimesters", or "choice" or anything akin to any of them. Roe is law made out of non-legal philosophy to conform with the personal politics of the time. And that's not ok. Courts are not lawmakers. Their job is to apply existing laws to controversies, not to construct law which they feel is proper. Because that's why we have legislators who run from our local towns and cities who take out hometown views to the state and nations capitals. And "law" like Roe, which is made by unelected and unaccountable judges is always wrong, no matter how well-intended. Which is among the reasons Roberts wouldn't mind seeing Roe overturned.
But arguing as NARAL does that opposition to Roe automatically disqualifies Roberts leads very easily to the conclusion that the abortion lobby will tolerate not the least bit of disagreement, and that all judges appointed to the courts of this land must actually favor abortion.
Americans are a little more independent-minded than that, and the implication that the abortion lobby gets to put its stamp on judges to the exclusion of any other issue (for example, experience, integrity, and devotion to the law--not activism) smacks of arrogance and an overreach that will hopefully stick with abortion activists for years to come. Because abortion is not a "right" worth the respect that the left gives it.