Via Media

Via Media


Out West

posted by awelborn

Interesting verbs used to described the abortion rights activist’s action. Rarely do you see them used in a MSM report, here:

Abortion rights advocates, concerned that the Bay Area movement has become too complacent, showed up en masse to protest the march. And they took a different approach. Although they were easily outnumbered by the marchers, the pro-choice supporters were loud and confrontational.

Many jeered and taunted the marchers, while others stood along the street, waved wire hangers and chanted slogans.

One group wore sheets and gowns dipped in red paint to symbolize their image of back-alley abortions.

Some sang "If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one” to the tune of "If You’re Happy and You Know It."

"We’re here today because abortion is a right, not a choice,” said Maya Jones of Oakland, a volunteer with the anti-war group Not in Our Name. "As we come up against this Christian fascism that is condoned by our government, it is more important than ever for people to come into the streets and take a stand.”

At Pier 7, abortion rights supporters held green balloons and a variety of handmade signs that ranged from the obscene, "F — your agenda," to the snide, [my emphasis] "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries.” And they chanted: "March for Life, that’s a lie, you don’t care if women die,” referring to fears of unsafe, back-alley abortions if the procedure were to be outlawed. Some mixed in signs and shouted messages of opposition to President Bush and the war in Iraq.

Sara Jane of San Francisco, a supporter of abortion rights, said she couldn’t let the Walk for Life march happen without showing up and speaking out.

"I think it’s important for us as women and feminists to not let this statement be made without any sort of resistance,” said Jane, 24. "I want to let them know they can’t come in and just do and say what they want."

More photos here from the website on the organizers of the opposition.

Photo source

Many more links to bloggers’ reports and photos of the March here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(36)
post a comment
Richard

posted January 22, 2006 at 11:47 am


Hello Amy,
Migth be the most ironic photo I’ve seen yet this year.



report abuse
 

Gerard E.

posted January 22, 2006 at 11:55 am


Speak for yourself, Mom.



report abuse
 

Krikor

posted January 22, 2006 at 12:03 pm


That SF Chronicle story — though still interesting as a rare example of balance — is from last year’s (2005) march. Let’s hope an equally even-handed one appears tomorrow.



report abuse
 

xavier

posted January 22, 2006 at 12:10 pm


Hi all:
I’m bemused by how unhinged the proabortionists are with this very modest protest. They know abortion’s reality but contort themeleves into pretzels to deny it. Since when is bringing a baby to term a right wing agenda that requires resistence?
xavier



report abuse
 

Lynn

posted January 22, 2006 at 12:23 pm


What a schizophrenic mentality that photo illustrates. I had to read it 3 times before I realized what the woman was trying to say.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.



report abuse
 

Liz

posted January 22, 2006 at 12:26 pm


Once saw a clip of Susan Sarandon giving a speech to Naral (or now, or something like that) defending ‘the right to choose’ even to the extent of partial birth abortion. She was eight or nine months pregnant… chilling.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted January 22, 2006 at 12:38 pm


That picture is sickening.
God help us.



report abuse
 

dymphna

posted January 22, 2006 at 12:45 pm


Somewhere, I can’t remember which book, it says in the bible that when God decides to let a people go on their way they simply go mad and can’t tell right from wrong. I’d say America has hit that point.



report abuse
 

sj

posted January 22, 2006 at 12:45 pm


Krikor, why do you think the article is about last year’s march? It clearly seems to reference current events:
“Saturday’s events come at a pivotal moment in the fight over abortion rights. The Senate is soon expected to confirm conservative Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which pro-choice activists fear will endanger Roe vs. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion 33 years ago.”



report abuse
 

Jeff Miller

posted January 22, 2006 at 12:50 pm


The continued perversion of reasoning – moral insanity.
If you don’t like slavery, don’t have a slave.
Of course government funded Planned Parenthood sells those specifically anti-Catholic “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries.”



report abuse
 

Emily

posted January 22, 2006 at 1:22 pm


Jason, you’re mistaken about the SF Chronicle article. It appears in the January 22, 2006 edition of the Chronicle, and it’s about yesterday’s Walk for Life.



report abuse
 

amywelborn

posted January 22, 2006 at 1:31 pm


Y’all,I initially posted the wrong link – that someone had sent me last night, incidentally. Hmmm. Anyway, it’s fixed now.



report abuse
 

T-racee

posted January 22, 2006 at 2:19 pm


I gasped when I read the quote from the pro-abortion activist “I want to let them know they can’t come in and just do and say what they want.”
That is just so ironic.



report abuse
 

Krikor

posted January 22, 2006 at 2:20 pm


Sorry — please disregard my earlier comment. For some strange reason I was directed to this article.



report abuse
 

John P Sheridan

posted January 22, 2006 at 2:38 pm


I am confused why the pregnant woman in the photo is referring to her “baby.” Perhaps she has a child at home? Surely, she cannot be referring to the organic matter inside her uterus, only right-wing religous nuts would call that a baby . . .



report abuse
 

Dave Wells

posted January 22, 2006 at 2:53 pm


Truly frightening. I was especially struck by one of the signs found in one of the links to the pictures: “Keep you hands off by body and I’ll keep my hands off your throat!”
How long, O Lord, how long?



report abuse
 

anonymous seminarian

posted January 22, 2006 at 3:23 pm


“And they took a different approach. Although they were easily outnumbered by the marchers, the pro-choice supporters were loud and confrontational.”
How exactly is being loud and confrontational a “different approach” than is usually taken by pro-choicers?



report abuse
 

Jennifer N.

posted January 22, 2006 at 4:12 pm


I think that I have now officially seen everything.
Forgive them, Lord. They know not what they do. I hope.



report abuse
 

Emily

posted January 22, 2006 at 6:00 pm


Err, I said “Jason” and I meant “Krikor” and it’s all moot anyway.



report abuse
 

Lynn

posted January 22, 2006 at 6:06 pm


My first thought too, Anon. Seminarian. The pro-abortionists are noted for their loud and confrontation tactics. This demonstration is certainly nothing new for them.



report abuse
 

Eileen R

posted January 22, 2006 at 6:11 pm


And they took a different approach
Really different, that. Must have been hallucinating all those years of seeing screaming pro-abortion protestors.



report abuse
 

mark

posted January 22, 2006 at 6:23 pm


dymphna, one possible Biblical reference to the general idea that “sin makes you stupid” would be … Romans 1:21-
“21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ”



report abuse
 

Fast Ed

posted January 22, 2006 at 9:22 pm


That woman is clearly not pregnant!



report abuse
 

sj

posted January 22, 2006 at 11:47 pm


I think the “different approach” the pro-choice group takes is from the anti-abortion group, not from their previous appearances. It’s clearer when you read the whole article.



report abuse
 

Meghan

posted January 23, 2006 at 12:36 am


I have never read such horrible comments as I did on the website the picture linked to. I am 16 and was crying for hours trying to understand how anyone can think that the slaughtering of children is acceptable. Do these people not understand that they are only alive today because their own mothers were pro-life? I pray to the Lord that someday people will understand this.



report abuse
 

Ed

posted January 23, 2006 at 1:21 am


Somewhat tangential to this thread, but I noted an interesting contrast at two different churches this morning.
At my local Catholic church in the suburbs of Chicago, the priest took note in his sermon that today was the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. A good, respectful sermon, it also included the Church’s opposition to capital punishment, euthanasia, etc.
A bit later that morning, I was with my wife at an Episcopalian church – she’s an Anglican/Episcopalian. Nary a word on abortion.
The sermon was good, yet I felt the omission of any mention of abortion was a striking contrast to what I had heard a bit earlier at the Catholic church. I recently saw that the Episcopal church is a member of something called the “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.” It is sad to see the moral conscience being actively sucked out of a Christian church.



report abuse
 

Sharon

posted January 23, 2006 at 4:52 am


Dymphna, I think that the book is ‘The Lamb’s Supper’by Scott Hahn. The quote from Romans 1:24 is found in Part 2 chapter 4 – Judgement Day.



report abuse
 

Sharon

posted January 23, 2006 at 4:52 am


Dymphna, I think that the book is ‘The Lamb’s Supper’by Scott Hahn. The quote from Romans 1:24 is found in Part 2 chapter 4 – Judgement Day.



report abuse
 

Dan Berger

posted January 23, 2006 at 10:13 am


Well, the photograph Amy reproduced did remind me of that wonderful slogan from T-shirtHell.com:
“Now that I’m safe, I’m pro-choice” (on a baby T-shirt)



report abuse
 

Rosemarie

posted January 23, 2006 at 10:35 am


+J.M.J+
>>>waved wire hangers…”If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one”…”Keep your rosaries off my ovaries”…”March for Life, that’s a lie, you don’t care if women die,”
Doesn’t sound like much was very new at all. The proaborts have been using the same gimmicks and slogans for at least 20 years now (probably longer). So much for creativity.
In Jesu et Maria,



report abuse
 

Tom

posted January 23, 2006 at 11:30 am


On the bright side, the loud and confrontational approach of the pro-abortionists and especially their smaller numbers who were counter-protesting may be indicative of a movement who that is faltering. No one said it would be easy to reverse abortion in this country. However now we are much better organized to get results.



report abuse
 

Lynn

posted January 23, 2006 at 12:30 pm


I pray that you are right, Tom.
Sunday my parish had an organzational meeting
for a deanery-wide chapter of Project Rachel. The large turn-out was amazing. It was heartening to see that how committed this group is to this ministry. Some people at the meeting (both men and women) spoke of their experience with abortion and the
grief that haunted them for years.
Please pray for us as we struggle to reach out
and help these abortion victims find healing and peace.



report abuse
 

Dan

posted January 23, 2006 at 12:39 pm


“Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” reflects not only ugly anti-Catholicism but also the blind spot pro-choicers have for the reality of the unborn child. The rosary is said for the child that has been conceived, not for the ovaries.



report abuse
 

CaAnti ProLifers

posted January 23, 2006 at 4:24 pm


If you voted for George W. Bush, you DO NOT HAVE any moral authority to say anything on this issue. NONE. NADA. NIL.
If you believe in the death penalty, then you DO NOT HAVE any moral authority to say anything on this issue. NONE. NADA. NIL.
If you support this congress which is squeezing the middle class and cutting social programs while supporting permanent tax cuts (which benefit only 10% of the country), then you DO NOT HAVE any moral authority to say anything on this issue. NONE. NADA. NIL.
If you support the Iraq Invasion (Note: not the war on terror, there is a difference!, then you DO NOT HAVE any moral authority to say anything on this issue. NONE. NADA. NIL.
If you support legalized discrimination against homosexuals,then you DO NOT HAVE any moral authority to say anything on this issue. NONE. NADA. NIL.
When you have gotten around to really living the Gospel of Jesus and the love He preached, then talk to me about what you believe in. Maybe I will listen.
(I do not support abortion, I am against narrow minded, judgmental, holier-than-thou hypocrites!)



report abuse
 

sj

posted January 23, 2006 at 8:42 pm


Explain yourself. Repeating “NONE. NADA. NIL.” after a number of propositions really doesn’t do it for me.



report abuse
 

COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX

posted March 1, 2006 at 9:36 pm


A Perverse Idea of Freedom

This tag line from a section in Evangelium vitae came to mind when I saw this picture over at Open Book today.  I wonder if this young mother really gets it?  Notice her belly-sign shows she understands that she is not a mother-to-be, but rather she…



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.