What's so 'untrue' about NARAL's Anti-Roberts Ads?

[ck4829]

I saw this morning in an article that NARAL is pulling it's ad of Roberts supporting Operation Rescue.

Everybody is saying it's untrue.

The one thing is that in the article, they don't say why the ad is false.

What's so false about showing the truth that Roberts tried to defend Operation Rescue?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

1. i don't get it.....people don't seem to see the disconnect

i could be completely wrong, but my take on it is this:
the ad states that by roberts ruling that they have the right to protest/free speech it is being alleged that he believes they also have the right to blow people up.

secondly, the incident they refer to in the commercial happened a few years after roberts ruling.

someone explain to me how that is not a huge gap to jump logically.

[papau]

2. It is "direct support" versus indirect point of law - Roberts said he

condemned bombing of the clinics

and media says the legal brief/memo does not change that - while the Naral ad implies that Roberts supported the violence.

The Roberts point that the law in question did not cover the clinic bombings was upheld by the USSC at the time - I think on a 6-3 vote.

[sidwill]

3. The Daily Show

Showed that in the commercial Naral was making an implied link between Roberts and the defense of the 1998 Birmingham womens clinic bomber. Stewart pointed out that Roberts wrote a brief supporting Operation rescue in 1991 and the bombing occured in 1998.

[rfranklin]

4. So Roberts planted the seeds by encouraging...

Operation Rescue, a violent Republican terrorist group.