3 of 3

"The attorney general's claim that this has nothing to do with NARAL is a smokescreen for a clear political agenda," says Slattery. "This is a political witch hunt in an election year for the attorney general, who is trying to pay back Planned Parenthood and NARAL for their aggressive political support."

NARAL did not respond to requests for comment. Spitzer, 39, is running for reelection in the fall.

A New York NARAL Political Action Committee brochure says that "NARAL/NY was central to the narrow, yet critical triumph by Eliot Spitzer in the race for Attorney General." The brochure also quotes Spitzer, a Democrat, attributing his 1998 election to NARAL : "NARAL/NY was instrumental in my victory.

"They made a difference not only for me, but for candidates throughout the state who care about choice. NARAL/NY is an essential piece in the pro choice movement-a voice of conscience, a voice of reason and a powerful part of New York."

"To suggest this is some type of crusade is wrong," says Dopp. The attorney general, he adds, has evidence that Slattery's organization used deceptive advertising to imply that their centers performed abortions.

Adams of the CLS says, "We're going to have some face to face negotiations with the attorney general and he'll want to use the settlement agreement [with Birthright] as a model code."

Adams says his centers are willing to enter into discussions with the attorney general's office, but that his clients "will reject outright" a similar settlement agreement.

In a prepared statement, McCarthy credited public awareness for the latest development. "It is clear that there has been tremendous pressure applied by the pro-life community since these subpoenas were issued. It is also clear that the subpoena was designed to intimidate our client and stifle the pro-life message," McCarthy explained. "We are pleased that the New York Attorney General is taking the proper course of action and withdrawing the subpoenas."

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Last Sunday, The Washington Times reported that two dozen pro-life pregnancy centers in New York were fighting back against the subpoenas.

In early February, Washington Times columnist Michelle Malkin wrote, "This fishing expedition by Mr. Spitzer's 'reproductive rights unit' is an obvious attempt to drain the centers of their private funding and to scare the centers' staffs — made up mostly of housewives, retirees, teachers and nurses."

For similar coverage, see Christianity Today'slife ethics archive.

first page |  3 of 3

share this page

February (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46