Sometimes you pick up the Washington Post in the morning and you just want to throw it across the lawn. Today is one of those times. "Roberts Resisted Women's Rights"? Why not just say "Roberts Supports Dragging Women By Hair"?
What screams liberal bias here is the idea that a headline saying Roberts "resisted women's rights" is to imply he believes women don't have or deserve rights, an odd position for a guy whose wife helps Feminists for Life.
"Women's rights" here is another attempt at rhetorical intimidation -- like daring conservatives to fight against "clean air" proposals -- that any agenda item the feminists suggested for affirmative discrimination (women paying less for college tuition since they're paid less in the workplace is one example cited in the Post) is a "woman's right." It's one thing for Kim Gandy to use this lingo. But it's acting as a NOW publicist for a newspaper to use it. You can almost imagine someone sitting in the Post "news" room and saying, "we need to do more to help Ted Kennedy spice up this Supreme Court fight."
You would never see the Post with an article saying "Ruth Ginsburg Resisted Saving Unborn Children." That sounds wildly ideological, right? But that headline is truer and more precise than what the Post did to Roberts today.