Pro-aborts have never experienced anything like the pounding NARAL took last week for its outrageously false ad against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.
In fact, the NARAL incident will go down in pro-life history as a significant event, a turning point when MSM – mainstream media – finally began to publicly scrutinize pro-aborts as they should be scrutinized. For the first time, MSM called pro-aborts on their lies.
A year ago, MSM wouldn’t have questioned them. A year ago, they didn’t. It’s not like this was the first devious smear campaign pro-aborts have ever attempted. It’s their modus operandi.
But as talk radio, Internet blogs, and elections appealed slowly to MSM’s sense of fairness, low ratings and cancelled subscriptions quickened the pace.
So before NARAL prez Nancy Keenan could step off the podium after announcing the ad on Aug. 8, the swarm began. She must have been shocked out of her abortion-loving mind to be interrogated by her buds. But as CNN described:
Keenan was pressed by reporters to explain why, if she said NARAL was not “suggesting” that “Roberts condones or supports clinic violence,” the ad says that Roberts’ “ideology leads him to excuse violence.”
Keenan was asked, “Aren’t ‘condone’ and ‘excuse’ the same thing?”
She responded, “I think there’s a difference with the … the brief that he filed was purely discretionary …
Keenan was pressed again, “So does he condone clinic violence or does he not?”
Her response, “Again, I don’t think he does condone clinic violence. We are not saying that …”
Keenan was interrupted with another question, “but you say he excuses it.”
And her answer: “He sided with groups that supported clinic violence …”
I love it. Investigative reporting of pro-aborts. How refreshing.
And that was only the beginning. By noon the same day, blogs also started to swarm. MSM knows now to watch for blog swarms. Bloggers have embarrassed MSM too many times to ignore, via swift boat vets and forged documents and plagiarizing reporters.
So MSM continued not only to accurately report NARAL’s gross misrepresentation of Roberts, but also to give the story top billing. Then, incredibly, it began editorializing. For example, the Chicago Sun-Times chastised:
[T]he NARAL ad was wrong, offensive and extreme in its suggestion that Roberts supported the reckless and criminal actions of abortion protesters … NARAL can object to Roberts’ nomination, but it needs to deliver its message in a reasoned and truthful way …
Politicians had never seen anything like this. For some time they had been feeling increasing pressure for supporting extremist groups like NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women, that force the “pro-choice” position to mean sanction of partial-birth abortion and opposition to parental notification, abortion clinic regulations and other common-sense confines around abortion.
Now fear and opportunism made it easy for pro-abort politicians to jump on the bandwagon and browbeat NARAL. They wanted it known: “We are not like them.”
U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter wrote NARAL a scathing letter on Aug. 11 saying its ad was “blatantly untrue and unfair,” adding this disclaimer:
May I also suggest that the NARAL advertisement is not helpful to the pro-choice cause which I support. When NARAL puts on such an advertisement, in my opinion it undercuts its credibility and injures the pro-choice cause.
Infighting among pro-abort groups has also been on the rise. Not much is more ferocious than wild animals backed into a corner. They, too, saw a chance to maul one of their own in an attempt to get more space. So the New York Times reported:
Frances Kissling, the longtime president of Catholics for a Free Choice, said she was “deeply upset and offended” by the advertisement, which she called “far too intemperate and far too personal” … [adding,] “As a pro-choice person, I don’t like being placed on the defensive by my leaders. Naral should pull it and move on.”
Then we saw a huge gaffe, rarely exposed: NARAL’s public implosion, demonstrated by the self- or organizationally imposed termination on Aug. 11 of its communications director, David Seldin, who runs left of left in his view of how to win the abortion war.
All of this is important evidence that our culture is changing on the abortion issue. If the other side didn’t quite get it before last week, they do now. They are losing their media protection. Then all they will have is the courts.
Which brings us back to the NARAL ad – a desperate attempt to hold on to that last bastion of power. And they’re losing that, too.