NARAL pulls ad, remains unapologetic

NARAL has pulled it's ad which unfairly misrepresents Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

Prolife Blogs is covering the story here.

Here's the AP story. NARAL's president Nancy Keenan said, "We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record."

Don't you mean, "We regret our recent advertisement misconstrued Mr. Roberts' record."

Some pro-choice bloggers respond:

Pseudo-Adrienne at Alas, a Blog:

NARAL Pro-Choice America has decided to pull its anti-Roberts ad due to all of the "controversy" (oh spare me–rolls eyes), which unfortunately with all of the reactionary shrilling over the ad, even by pro-choicers and liberals, has distracted just about everyone (including us pro-choicers and lefties) from the reality and the focus of this campaign.Which is, duh, exposing the threat Roberts' poses to women's reproductive rights.

Bitch PhD. breaks with the party line and admits,"while factual in a strict sense, it was somewhat misleading,"

Media Girl (warning profanity)

Bondad (warning lots and lots of profanity)

UPDATE:

Scott Leigh in The Boston Globe:

"But it is fundamentally wrong to portray Roberts as man who has excused violence against other Americans or who somehow offered legal support in a clinic bombing case. And that's the impression this ad obviously tries to create.

Factcheck.org calls it guilt by association. Character assassination might be more apt."

Ouch.

The Washington Post on the ad: "But the impression it creates with this ad is not an argument but a smear-- a smear that will do less to discredit Judge Roberts than it will the organization that created it."

Double Ouch.

UPDATE #2
Here's NARAL's etter to Arlen Specterl which says that they'll pull the commercial.

It includes this statement: "Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public."

Funny, I can't remember the last time I tried to have a serious discussion by saying, "America can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans." That just has 'serious' discussion written all over it, doesn't it?