Welcome to the world of politics.

Whether or not certain herds are harmed by drilling/roads/whatever cannot REALLY be determined until AFTER such is done. All that can be done PRIOR is to model the situation and "predict" results.

Of course, each model is based upon certain assumptions. And these assumptions vary with the bias of the person doing the modeling.

As for politicians not being completely truthful about sex.......... Geeeeeee, I've NEVER heard of that before. Ever.

As for NOW's public endorsement, anytime you want to get into a public/private moral value discussion, just post your position. I can understand NOW's having trouble believing some allegations when the person accused does such great work in the public sector. They also don't WANT to believe that their hero isn't a hero. Simple denial. They're showing their bias in what evidence they accept or not.

Trust no one.

Still, I would tend to give more weight to NOW's position regarding women's issues.

Just as I would tend to give less weight to someone's "predictions" about the environmental impact of certain actions if said person was to personally profit from such. (or worked for a company that would).

Do you trust cancer research funded by the tobacco industry?

The radical element has to keep pushing for more.

That's what defines the radical element.

As more and more of their goals are accomplished, the less radical members drop the group. What USED to be a relevant, needed organization becomes nothing more than single-issue freaks.