And I happen to disagree with you

Solar, I had no trouble understanding the intended message of the NARAL statement; even with the poor sentance structure. The critical 3 words in the statement are "in order to" which indicates giving up one thing in favor of another. Any reasonable, educated adult would also understand what NARAL is saying.

Mr. Peters' is criticizing NARAL for criticizing the Family Research Council's "Pro-life" media campaign (barely commenting on NARAL's support of legalizing marijuanna, which is the primary focus of the petition).

His logic stumbles with his title and asssumptions: Pro-Aborts' "Stupid" Drive to Keep Seniors' Abortion Coverage.

"Pro-Aborts'" The term is offensive, snide and derisive (as it's meant to be by the " pro-life " supporters who use it).
""Stupid" Drive to Keep Seniors' Abortion Coverage." Used in reference to a petition supporting the legalization of marijuanna.

He's grasping at an excuse to promote the "anti- abortion " position while also seeking to discredit the " pro-choice " position; which he's at liberty to do. However, he's going to have to do better than this not to look the fool.

He sums up: "Well, maybe we can begin to make the charge that the pro-abortion movement is illiterate and biased".

Granted, it's an opinion piece, but it comes across to me as a very weak attempt to sound reasonable when in fact it's childish and a deliberate misinterpretation of the NARAL petition. He posted to a public forum; rebuttal should be expected. Especially when the "logic" of his argument is so obviously reaching.