Filibusters Are Bad; Lying About The Opposition Is Perfectly Okay

I mentioned in an earlier post that I had somehow found myself on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s e-mail list. I still have no idea how that happened, but I will be eternally grateful that it did; their missives are a rich source of blogging material.

Their latest, which hit my inbox this morning, concerns Dawn Johnsen, who has been nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Ms. Johnsen, a former legal director for NARAL, is facing a possible filibuster from Republican Senators on the basis of past statements regarding women, pregnancy and abortion. That, however, will be discussed in a future post.

NARAL is outraged that the GOP would consider such a move. In their words, “We must make it clear to our senators that derailing nominees for critical positions in the Obama administration and in the federal courts is not an option.” One might wonder where NARAL was when the Democrats filibustered John Bolton, but I digress.

What’s worth noting here is that, while NARAL might decry the use of a filibuster to derail Presidential appointees, they have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to lying about a Presidential appointee who doesn’t agree with their pro-abortion agenda.

And for what it’s worth, I will no longer be using this organization’s full name. From this point forward I will be dropping the “Pro-Choice” portion of their name as I’ve determined that choice isn’t really what they’re all about.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “Filibusters Are Bad; Lying About The Opposition Is Perfectly Okay

  1. Bill Cantrell

    There may be a deal cut that would allow them to be confirmed…
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-05/are-republicans-blackmailing-obama

    Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public. The source says these threats are the principal reason for the Obama administration’s abrupt pullback last week from a commitment to release some of the documents. A Republican Senate source confirms the strategy. It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward.

    Not a single Republican indicated an intention to vote for Dawn Johnsen, while Senator John Cornyn of Texas was described as “gunning for her,” specifically noting publication of the torture memos.

    Barack Obama entered Washington with a promise of transparency. One of his first acts was a presidential directive requiring that the Freedom of Information Act, a near dead letter during the Bush years, was to be enforced according to its terms. He specifically criticized the Bush administration’s practice of preparing secret memos that determined legal policy and promised to review and publish them after taking office.

  2. Good choice, Paula. The last thing the pro-aborts want is for you to choose life.

  3. Pro-abortion is a myth. Are you ok with being linked with people who bomb planned parenthood clinics. When you say pro-abortion you are name calling and that does not lead to any constructive dialogue. So are you just spouting to people who believe the way you do or are you opening a conversation?

    • paulag1955

      I’m always willing to engage in conversation and obviously no sane person wants to be linked with bombers. I hope you don’t mean to imply that I would condone that behavior, because that would be perilously close to name-calling.

      However, I don’t think it’s engaging in name-calling to call NARAL pro-abortion. If you read my post carefully, you know I wasn’t making a blanket statement. NARAL is only interested in choice for one, very narrow group of people (I’m not saying it’s not a large group, just a group that can be narrowly defined), women who are seeking abortions. They are certainly not interested in protecting freedom of choice or conscience for physicians, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers who might object to participating in abortions for personal reasons.

      Calling NARAL pro-choice requires a suspension of the commonly understood meaning of the word choice. There are many people who are truly pro-choice. I don’t believe NARAL is a group that is representing their viewpoint.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s