Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
March For Life: Rally To End Roe V. Wade Ruling Goes High Tech
Share:
by Yuliya Talmazan | January 22, 2010 at 12:50 pm
1294 views | 30 Recommendations | 28 comments
Photos
March For Life is gathering pro-lifers all over the United States to end Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Ruling, but this year the rally is going high tech with virtual broadcast, live-blogging and a Twitter hashtag.
March For Life, an annual anti-abortion, pro-life rally, was held today in Washington, D.C. The March For Life rally organized by the March for Life Education and Defense Fund ended on the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States were the protesters seek to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling made 37 years ago. January 22, 2010 marks the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in a widely publicized case of Roe v. Wade, which effectively legalized abortion in the United States. The case involved an anonymous woman ("Jane Roe") -- Norma L. McCorvey and district attorney Henry Wade. McCorvey claimed that she was raped to get a right to abortion. Her case lead the Supreme Court to rule that a woman should have a right to abort for any reason unless the fetus is already viable.
Each year, around 100,000-300,000 people attend the March For Life rally. The 2009 rally attracted 250,000 people.
The March for Life 2010 will begin at around 9:00 AM near National Mall on 7th Street, the point where anti abortion activists, or the Pro Life marchers will assemble.
The March for Life 2010 would move from the National Mall towards East, on Constitution Avenue to First Street and then from South on First Street, to end at the US Supreme Court.
Although the march does not typically receive a lot of attention from the mainstream media, the Catholic Television Network, EWTN was broadcasting the 4-hour March for Life live today. The network calls the march one of the most important pro-life events of the year. The broadcast included interviews, panel discussions, and speeches from "pro-lifers."
The March For Life also went high tech this year. Pro-life supporters unable to attend the rally had a chance to complete a virtual March For Life and engage in live-blogging. The site estimates over 73,000 people joined online. A conversation is also being held on Twitter -- people are using the #march4life hashtag to discuss the rally.
Videos
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
Yuliya Talmazan
Burnaby, Canada
Amberture
Arlington, Virginia, United States
Related Stories
Recommendations (30)
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States
snuffysmith
Washington D.C., D.C., United States
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke
Redwater, Alberta, Canada
stejeb
United Kingdom
Sputnic
London, United Kingdom
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (28)
at 13:00 on January 22nd, 2010
Thank you for covering this story.
at 13:02 on January 22nd, 2010
Yes, thank you, Yuliya!
at 13:17 on January 22nd, 2010
They should rename it the "march to force women back to back street abortions, infections and death rally"
at 13:43 on January 22nd, 2010
I hope the west never returns to such treatment of women, and that where it still exists will reform. Abortion happens far to often. If people were not so afraid to be labelled anti women or anti pro choice, perhaps more would be done to encourage women to take the better option and men to take more responsibility
- Sign In or Join to post comments
psalm (not verified)at 13:49 on January 22nd, 2010
stejeb,The "back-alley" abortion is one of the most illogical and tired arguments out there...so very 1970's. Do some research and also examine the logic of the argument. would a "pro-choice" rally be called a March-for-death? It should be.
at 14:04 on January 22nd, 2010
"The "back-alley" abortion is one of the most illogical and tired arguments out there...so very 1970's."
Try telling that to the woman injured and killed. You are the one who needs to do some research. Allow me to get you started.....
"Backstreet abortion
Many illegal abortions are carried out using primitive surgical methods: injecting poisonous solutions into the womb or inserting objects intended to dislodge the fetus. These kinds of abortions are referred to as backstreet abortions because they are often carried out by someone with no training, in an unhygienic environment, in conditions of great secrecy."
Source Education For Choice
And if you are going to use my words, use all of the sentence, not just the bit that appeals to you as a point-maker in a debate
at 14:44 on January 22nd, 2010
So, you are saying that "Backstreet abortion" is real similar to legal abortion?
Poor hygiene, primitive surgical methods, injecting saline solution to kill the baby, inserting scapula to scrape the baby from the womb. Still pretty gruesome - especially for the baby.
at 14:56 on January 22nd, 2010
I understand that your objections are quite probably based on your beliefs Hugh, and you are fully entitled to hold those beliefs, I don't think you have the right to force those beliefs, to the detriment of womens health, needs and choice, down everyone elses throats.
And I think modern medical practitioners would be severely at odds with you for that statement.
at 16:46 on January 22nd, 2010
"And I think modern medical practitioners would be severely at odds with you for that statement."
I think there are lists of "modern medical practitioners" that perform/performed LEGAL abortions, that have lost their license or been shut down, because they failed to meet minimum state requirements. I know the number is more than a few.
As to my objections being based on my beliefs, i would most certainly think so.
Were i to base my opinion upon what others say - as many here do - i would have no logical reason to speak up for the babies that are killed without recourse.
at 14:54 on January 22nd, 2010
I don't think it's the fact that a woman could be forced to have a backstreet abortion against her will, but the fact that she may feel like she is forced to have one when faced with no other alternative if what she wishes is to terminate the pregnancy.
at 14:01 on January 22nd, 2010
"They should rename it the "march to force women back to back street abortions, infections and death rally"
Curious if you could give us a single documented instance of a woman being "forced" into a back alley abortion.
Just a single one.
Oh, I'm sure you can find something, somewhere, where the woman was actually drug into a back alley, against her will .................................
at 14:07 on January 22nd, 2010
That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever been asked to do.....
Can you deny that if you take away any legal method, there is any alternative?????
- Sign In or Join to post comments
fundiesnotwanted (not verified)at 14:35 on January 22nd, 2010
Their response would be prayUntil one of theirs needs medical help, then its bugger the prayers and miracle, I need a doctor and nowPompous two faced fundies
at 17:45 on January 22nd, 2010
Certainly i can deny, in fact i'll be on record for denying it right here - how is that?
I'm curious why being ask to provide documentation for a flagrantly false statement is ridiculous?
Should we all just accept lies as truth? I won't accuse you of doing that - it seems that you believe the falsehood to be true, thus can at least claim sincerity when you repeat it.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
trishak (not verified)at 19:13 on March 13th, 2010
She could choose to give birth to an innocent child, in part made up of her own flesh and blood, and oh I dont know, give the baby to someone who would love it like their own or better yet fall in love. I know the emotional pain of having an abortion and the love of having children, believe me all that stuff they feed you about pro-choice are lies. Our mothers were pro-life, now it is our turn to give new babies a chance at life.
at 14:37 on January 22nd, 2010
Well, you made one of the most outrageous statements ever, and it has been repeated mindlessly for years and years and years.
I thought i would simply ask for some documentation.
Can you find me a single documented case of a woman in this country being forced against her will into having a back alley abortion?
Do you REALLY think that if abortion is outlawed, that they will send out the police to force women into back alley abortions?
If you are going to make outlandish statements, please expect to be called on them.
at 14:48 on January 22nd, 2010
I see you are just going to ignore what I said in reply to your "outlandish" request Hugh....please at least acknowledge and make a meaningful remark, instead of just playing devil's advocate...
The whole history of backstreet abortions is documentation enough for my statement, I will clarify further...when there is no LEGAL alternative then women are forced into taking the alternative, unhealthy and life threatening course of backstreet abortion.
So, since it was made legal there in the USA in 1973, and here in the UK in 1967 there haven't been any "documented" cases to refer to, one of the main reasons anti-abortion laws were introduced in the US during the early part of the 19th century was nothing to do with moral objections, it was more about the safety of the procedures used. Prior to 1973 in the USA, it didn't NEED police to "force" women to have terminations that way, THEY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE!
at 14:54 on January 22nd, 2010
No, i didn't ignore it. I asked you to provide documentation for your statement. So far you have failed to do so.
I think your statement is blatantly false. I ask again for documentation - not false claims.
at 15:02 on January 22nd, 2010
Which statement is false Hugh?
History of abortion is documentation enough.
Please read previous post.
at 15:07 on January 22nd, 2010
The statement that says women will be forced into back alley abortions.
Pretty simple.
Prove it. Give us some documentation - not false claims.
at 15:12 on January 22nd, 2010
Pretty simple.
History of abortion is documentation enough.
at 02:59 on January 23rd, 2010
The history of abortion says that over 50,000,000 babies have been killed under the banner of "legal abortion" in the US.
That is documentation that says we have lost a good bit of our own humanity, and a very, very large amount of human potential.
Still, not a single drop of evidence from you to back up your egregiously false claim - nor, I might add -have I ever seen any evidence in all the years the lame statement has been used by the lockstep pro-abortion lackeys.
at 14:57 on January 22nd, 2010
Saying that proof of physical force must be brought to light in order to prove that women get "back alley abortions" is disingenuous. There are other factors in life that can force somebody to do something, as any adult well knows.
Health and financial situation spring instantaneously to mind.
at 15:02 on January 22nd, 2010
That is like saying that living in poverty forces you into a life of crime....simply NOT true.
at 15:10 on January 22nd, 2010
I bet there aren't many in this world that could see any comparison between the two subjects, but I'd bet bottom dollar they would be the most vocal and vehement in shouting me down, thank you for the good male christian slant on the subject.
at 03:22 on January 23rd, 2010
Life is not a statistic ! While people do often make immoral choices, moralisers if placed in the same situation would invariably do worse. Pro lifer headlines hit the same newspapers as do headlines about welfare cheats. What can the poor do ? That is besides make and maintain everything made by Humanity everywhere on planet Earth. The rich are ungrateful, and should "charitably" start paying back the poor. Most abortions happen as a result of poverty, abortion is against my religion and I do not advocate it, give the world an alternative !
at 17:48 on January 22nd, 2010
So you are saying woman are "FORCED" to have an abortion?
How are they "FORCED"? By what means?
Who is forcing them? Why aren't the people forcing them being charged with a crime, if in fact they are "FORCING" women?
Perhaps you mean that women will "choose" to have illegal back-alley abortions, if abortion is outlawed? Is that what you mean?
There is more than a small difference between the two words - a world of difference, in fact.
If you mean "choose" then you should use that word - it does change the debate just a tad.
It also means that your original statement was wrong - perhaps deliberately so, perhaps not - but still wrong - as i stated at the beginning of this discussion.
at 05:01 on January 23rd, 2010
It's unfortunate that the pro-abortionists were not the ones aborted instead of the ones who really had no-choice.