thomas more2.jpgYesterday, I posted an email from Bob Enyart, in which he accused some pro-life groups of “fraudulent PBA [partial-birth abortion]fundraising.”
In that email Enyart included four “[q]uotes admitting the truth about the legal authority of the PBA ban.” One of those was:

Thomas More Society’s Pro-Life Law Center: special counsel Paul Linton authored amicus briefs to the U. S. Supreme Court in the partial-birth abortion cases, and said of the PBA ruling: “It’s not going to stop any abortions as such,” he said. “They’re still going to take place by other means.”

I have received this email from Paul Linton, whom Enyart quoted above, objecting to Enyart’s use of his quote out of context and calling on Enyart to alert all those to whom he has misquoted Linton:

Jill,
I wanted to respond to the e-mail Bob Enyart apparently has circulated regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s partial-birth abortion ban decision in April (Gonzales v. Carhart). The e-mail quotes comments I made, in my capacity as Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society (Chicago, Illinois), about the Court’s decision, to Bob Unruh of World Net Daily….

While the comments attributed to me in Enyart’s e-mail are accurate, they have been taken out of context, as Enyart should know from reading the entirety of Bob Unruh’s thoughtful and balanced article, posted June 7, 2007. On behalf of the Thomas More Society, I strongly object to Enyart’s use of those out-of-context quotations and would ask that, if he is going to quote me in any correspondence or communications, he not take my comments out of context for the sake of making a polemical point with which I do not agree and which does not represent either my views or those of the Thomas More Society. I also would ask that he send a corrected e-mail to everyone who received the earlier one, setting forth my views in full context.
I did tell Bob Unruh that, in the short term, the partial-birth abortion law was “not going to stop any abortions, as such,” and that abortions are “still going to take place by other means.” But I added that, in the long term, the Court’s decision upholding the law would have a great impact. “It’s very clear from Justice Kennedy’s opinion that states could enact informed consent laws, including laws requiring a physician to describe in some detail the abortion method to be used. It may have some significance for fetal pain legislation, and other types of regulations.” Enyart did not include this quotation in his e-mail, nor did he summarize it for the benefit of providing a complete picture of what I said. Nor did he include my comment, also reported in the World Net Daily story, that the Court was not going to entertain “facial” challenges to abortion regulations anymore, but would restrict such abortion challenges to individual applications involving real, not hypothetical, circumstances. Anyone who is conversant with Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence would understand the significance of this sea-change in approach.
The Thomas More Society supports and helps to defend appropriate measures to reduce the incidence of abortion while we work toward the day when all unborn children are welcomed in life and protected by law. There is certainly room in the pro-life movement for both “purist” goals and “incremental” means, but it does not promote either to misrepresent what is said in an interview or to take comments out of context.
Paul Linton
Special Counsel
Thomas More Society

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...