NARAL isn't alone in making up stuff about Judge Roberts; seems like Democratic Senators are taking a hand in weaving the leftwing fantasy (from NRO's Bench Memos):

A New York Times story today reports on Senator Ron Wyden (D., Oreg.)'s characterization of a "courtesy" meeting with John Roberts. Apparently, courtesy only goes one way, since Wyden was happy to put words in Roberts mouth where he knew that Roberts could not respond: "I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy," Mr. Wyden said in a telephone interview after the hourlong meeting. "His answer was, 'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.' " According to the story, which cites only Wyden as a source, Wyden "said that Judge Roberts, while not addressing the Schiavo case specifically, made clear he was displeased with Congress's effort to force the federal judiciary to overturn a court order withdrawing her feeding tube."

According to a White House source familiar with the meeting, the story is completely off base and represents a "gross lack of journalistic ethics." The reporter, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "never called the White House and didn't call the judge to check the quotes." She was essentially "anointing a Democratic Senator to be spokesperson" for Judge Roberts.

Since the story is from the NY Times, "gross lack of journalistic ethics" is only to be expected - and we also see the working relationship of MSM and Democratic Party; they really do read off the same script (and Democrats get mighty upset when the MSM gets off script from time to time).

This would seem to be part of the Democratic tactic to get conservative groups to come out in opposition to Roberts; our Democrats leave no stone unturned in their quest to defeat any Bush Administration effort. The only commonality between all Democratic tactics is the fact that each and every one of them is based upon a lie.

UPDATE: Ed Gillespie writes (PDF) the New York Times advising them that, "the White House would appreciate the opportunity to provide a fuller accounting of a two-way discussion." In other words, it'd be nice if the NY Times would at least check a fact or two before putting something into the so-called "paper of record".