The National Organization for Women must be hurting for publicity and must also adhere to the old saying that there is "no such thing as bad publicity," because their recent decision to come to the defense of the woman who lied about being gang raped to Rolling Stone is otherwise astonishing.

Police found no evidence to back up the allegation (although they haven't officially closed the case). The accuser, Jackie, named the man she claimed took her to a fraternity party and initiated the gang rape — and no one by that name was a student at the University of Virginia or even existed in the United States.

There was no party at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house on the night she claimed to have been raped. Her story changed in material ways over the years. At one point, she claimed he had been forced to perform oral sex on five men. At another, she said she had been raped by seven, including with a beer bottle. Every detail she provided to Rolling Stone was either absolutely proven false or cast into very deep doubt — from her bloody and torn dress to the way her friends and a university administrator treated her after she came forward.

Despite all of this, NOW is calling Jackie a "survivor" and condemning the U.Va. dean who is suing Rolling Stone and requesting documents to prove she was defamed by the magazine.

"Your dean's demands recite nearly every false argument made to undermine victims of sexual assault," NOW's president, Terry O'Neill, wrote to U.Va. president Teresa Sullivan. "It is exactly this kind of victim blaming and shaming that fosters rape culture, re-victimizes those brave enough to have come forward, and silences countless other victims."

I'm sorry, what? It's not victim blaming if there isn't a victim.

In the very next sentence, NOW refers to Jackie as a "survivor." The organization then questions how victims of sexual assault will be able to come forward after the dean's actions.

The dean in question, Nicole Eramo, has been described by numerous women who have come forward with sexual assault accusations as being their greatest ally. She was defended by them in the days and weeks following the article, even before the hoax was brought to light.

Dean Eramo was maligned by Rolling Stone and by Jackie. She is suing Rolling Stone but not Jackie, however, Jackie likely has documentation that proves what was printed about Eramo was false.

NOW requests that U.Va. somehow take "necessary steps to put a stop" to Eramo's request for documentation that will help her lawsuit. How U.Va. could do such a thing is not outlined by NOW, and outside of threatening to fire Eramo (which could then be grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit), it's unclear what the university could do.

Standing with victims and survivors is admirable; standing with liars is not. If anything, standing with proven liars hurts the cause, because it shows desperation on the part of a leading feminist organization to cling to the belief that women don't lie about rape.

It also sends a message to real victims that the truth doesn't actually matter, and that liars deserve the same treatment as actual survivors. That seems to be more harmful to real victims than requesting documentation from a rape hoaxer.

NOW did not respond to the Washington Examiner's inquiries.