NARAL (Once Again) Being Dishonest

Here's what they consider "background" information with common sense questions inserted:

• The Supreme Court struck down an almost identical state law as unconstitutional in 2000 [Um, and that would be...?], and every court to hear a challenge to this first-ever federal ban on abortion declared it unconstitutional. [Do you guys care if it goes the other way: when courts uphold pro-life bills but the Supreme Court upholds your side? It really doesn't look good for the pro-choice crowd to be whining about us having the Supreme Court give us something the other courts wouldn't.]
  
• Since the Court's decision in 2000, President Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and abortion foes see these appointments as an opportunity to undermine the Roe v. Wade decision.
• For the first time since Roe, this ban [WHAT BAN?] has no exception for the health of the woman.
• Any doctor who violates this ban [WHAT BAN?] would face criminal penalties of up to 2 years in prison, even if he/she was acting to protect the woman's health.
• This ban [WHAT BAN?] rolls back key protections that have been guaranteed since the days of Roe v. Wade.
• The Court, with the addition of Bush's appointees, has disregarded the medical opinion of leading doctors who oppose the ban [WHAT BAN?]. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - which represents 90 percent of the OB GYNs in this country - says the ban is harmful to women's health and interferes with medical decision making.

Why can't NARAL just come out and say what they are actually thinking: "We are OK with partial-birth abortion for any reason!" It would make things so much easier, though, frankly, they may feel a dwindle in support. Like I've said before, NARAL does not support anywhere near the vast majority of self-identified pro-choicers. They are for abortion for any reason whatsoever, at any stage of pregnancy, with "no apology". Of course they start crying about the fact that there is no "health" exception in Gonzales v. Carhart--er, I mean "The Federal Abortion Ban", causing housewives in Manhattan to lock up the kids in the basement and go out in search of wire coat-hangers for the impeding Doom that will befall women.

In a pathetic hope that somewhere NARAL would link their own name for the ban and the actual name of the ban together, I clicked on yet another "Find Out More Information" link (what is this, "Choose Your Own Adventure" on the NARAL website?) and that led me to a press release that only Nancy Keenan could draft. Of course, that painful read provided no information about the actual details of "The Federal Abortion Ban", but, indeed, "this is a setback for all Americans who believe politicians should not make private, personal medical decisions for the rest of us". I wonder had Nancy worded it, "This is a setback for all Americans who believe politicians should not be making private, personal late-term partial-birth abortion decisions for the rest of is" if it would ring the same with the average American as her first sentence.

My most loyal pro-choice readers will undoubtedly scoff and say that there is nothing deceptive about the term "Federal Abortion Ban" and yes, they can see that it is capitalized as a proper noun rather than a regular noun, what does that have to do with anything--why would I ask? NARAL can do no wrong.

[Crossposted to NathanSheets.com, his blog and the wonderful Pro-Life Community on LiveJournal]