HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » 'March For Life' Rally Dr...

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:14 PM

'March For Life' Rally Drawing Large Crowd In Washington

Source: NPR

Organizers say today's March for Life rally in the nation's capital may bring more anti-abortion activists to the streets than last year's estimated 400,000. By midday, a large crowd was gathered in the National Mall, listening to speeches from former GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum and others and preparing to march toward the Capitol and the Supreme Court.

"We've seen lots of markers that would show that," Jeanne Monahan, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, tells NBC Washington. "Our hotel block sold out a month in advance of what it's ever sold out, and we've had more media requests than ever before, so we expect really record-breaking crowds."

As Washington's WTOP reports, anti-abortion activists from across the nation are coming for the march that commemorates the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/25/170236110/march-for-life-rally-expected-to-draw-huge-crowd-in-washington



If it weren't so ridiculously cold I'd go get some pictures for you guys.

14 replies, 2432 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'March For Life' Rally Drawing Large Crowd In Washington (Original post)
Recursion Jan 2013 OP
xxxsdesdexxx Jan 2013 #1
PatrynXX Jan 2013 #8
Mutatis Mutandis Jan 2013 #13
obama2terms Jan 2013 #11
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #2
mountain grammy Jan 2013 #3
askeptic Jan 2013 #4
HughBeaumont Jan 2013 #5
SoapBox Jan 2013 #10
LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #6
Dawson Leery Jan 2013 #7
SoapBox Jan 2013 #9
Ready4Change Jan 2013 #12
AngryOldDem Jan 2013 #14

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:16 PM

1. 'March For Fetus'; after they're born who cares what happens to them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxxsdesdexxx (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:30 PM

8. more like March for the 20 million dead women

that have been saved because of Roe V Wade. in addition to who knows how many abortions that still would have happened.

aha it's March of the Dead time. yeah I was surprised Netflix didn't sue. It was their Red Envelope campaign. I'd assume Red states for the number of people Republicans helped kill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:04 AM

13. not to pick a fight, but that 20 million figure is vastly overstated and hyperbolic statements

 

like that only serve hurt our side in the in the defense of pro-choice, pro womens' rights stances, as they are easily debunked (even by neanderthal bible-thumpers), thus hurting overall credibility.

According to the World Health Organization, on a global basis, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion. In 2003, the WHO estimated that 66,500 global deaths due to unsafe abortions occurred. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596121_eng.pdf

That means approximately 2.1 million died in the last 30 years globally, and the USA makes up only 4.5% of total world population. In addition, Roe v Wade only applies to the USA, nowhere else.

Here is some further information that shows that the real number, taking the highest number, would put the 30 year total of US deaths from illegal abortions not performed by doctors at 20 to 30 thousand, not 20 million. Even taking NARAL's highest numbers (which they themselves admit is untrue), you get 180,000 to 300,000 for the whole 30 year period. :

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2510/before-em-roe-em-v-em-wade-em-did-10-000-women-a-year-die-from-illegal-abortions

snip

Establishing exactly how many women died due to botched illegal abortions is obviously impossible, since many of these deaths likely weren't reported as such. However, even a generous reading of the statistics we do have indicates that Goodman is off by a factor of ten; a stickler might say she blew it by a ratio of 250 to 1. It's not like this is a news flash, either. A reasonable approximation of the annual total in the 60s has been public knowledge for 35 years. To be fair, the number Goodman uses is consistent with estimates that were widely cited prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. But some say those numbers were knowingly inflated by proponents of abortion rights. The star witness for this claim is Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion clinic doctor who in 1969 co-founded the group now called NARAL Pro-Choice America (the letters originally stood for National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws). Since Roe, though, he's turned against his former comrades he made the highly controversial 1984 antiabortion film The Silent Scream and has authored several books describing his conversion on this issue and critiquing the abortion-rights movement.

In Aborting America (1979) Nathanson writes: "In NARAL we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always '5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.' I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" (Emphasis is his.) Better late than never. For 1972, the last full year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion. (The death total for all abortions, including legal ones, was 88.) That figure is low, thanks to underreporting, but in any case the number of deaths had been dropping sharply for the previous few years. A statistic perhaps more typical of the pre-Roe era was reported in a 1969 Scientific American article co-written by Christopher Tietze, a senior fellow with the Population Council: "The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000."

Had the number been higher in still earlier years? Yes. Tietze comments in his article that "some 30 years ago , it was judged that such deaths might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year." He gives no source, but if we turn to W. Cates et al ("Trends in national abortion mortality, United States, 1940-1974," Advances in Planned Parenthood, 1976), we find that 1,682 abortion-related deaths were officially reported in 1940. If we guess that this figure represents roughly a quarter of actual mortality due to illegal abortion, we get 6,800 deaths somewhere below the middle of the range given by Tietze, whereas Ellen Goodman's number is at the very top. But that was in 1940, remember. I didn't Google Ms. Goodman to determine when she was born; I'll just say that if she's pushing 80, as her statement "those of us who remember when 10,000 American women a year died from illegal abortions" would imply, she's remarkably well preserved.

None of this argues for or against abortion, but the claim that legalization has prevented the deaths of thousands upon thousands of women doesn't hold up. Roe v. Wade saved some lives, but the numbers were small reported deaths due to illegal abortion declined from 39 in 1972 to 5 in 1974. The biggest factor in reducing abortion mortality was undoubtedly the overall improvement in prenatal and obstetrical care after World War II. The rate of pregnancy-related deaths from causes other than abortion dropped at roughly the same pace as the abortion death rate from 1940 through 1974 (though abortion-related deaths did decline faster after 1965, which Cates attributes largely to advances in contraception and the state-by-state relaxation or repeal of abortion laws).

Self-induced and back-alley abortions were becoming a thing of the past long before Roe: sex researcher Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing. The fact is that prior to legalization abortion had become relatively safe and easy to obtain for those who could afford it. Studies done at the time show that the risks were borne disproportionately by those who couldn't, mostly minorities. Were abortion to be recriminalized, that would likely be the case again.

snip

---------------------------------------

Again, I am sure we both agree fervently on the absolute right for a womens' rights to choose, I just am a stickler for numbers used to at least be within a reasonable range, not one so inflated that the entire argument quickly becomes 'us on the defense' after tossing out inflated stats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxxsdesdexxx (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:41 PM

11. Exactly

A guy my brother goes to school with is at this and they got into a huge argument before he left and of course he got all offended when my brother pointed that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:22 PM

2. I'd like to walk in a March for Life.

a march to keep out of unwarranted wars - that'll save a life.

a march to end the war on drugs, sucking the profit motive from gangs - that'll save a life.

a march to free drug-related convicts - that'll save a life

a march to extend Medicare to all - that'll save a life.

a march to make sure safe abortions are available to all who choose one - that'll save a life.

Yeah, I'd march for Life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:34 PM

3. Yes, now that would be a March for Life!

This makes me sick.. wonder what percentage of the mob is male?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:48 PM

4. The Constitution is not a popularity contest

and the right to privacy guaranteed and affirmed in Roe is what makes a woman's body her business - at least to a point.

And if you don't have the right to control your own body - regardless of what OTHER people think is the "right" choice - there really isn't any freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:29 PM

5. These idiots aren't "pro-life", they're "pro-birth".

One only needs to witness how much they care about their precious once they're out of the motherly confines . . . NOT MUCH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:59 PM

10. "..."pro-life", they're "pro-birth"..."

Oh, that's good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:44 PM

6. I'm thinking bad thoughts

Drone attack

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:55 PM

7. The pro-zygote mafia could give a damn less what happens after birth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:58 PM

9. ...how many are male, that will never bear a child.

Or have anything go wrong with the pregnancy? Or be raped and get pregnant? Or get pregnant from incest?

I'm most interested in what women have to say, NOT men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:53 PM

12. That is NOT 400,000

Based on the pictures I've seen, turnout was no where close to 400,000.

Their stage is a ways up the mall from the Capital building. The crowd looks to be petering out by the Smithsonian castle. It looks very mall centric, ie: not many people in the streets to either side.

Most of the pictures are from a low angle, a technique used to hide lack of attendance. Pictures from a higher angle reveal the thinness of a crowd.

I've attended both liberal and conservative events on the mall. Coverage tends to be biased to minimize liberal turnouts and maximize conservative turnouts. For example, one I attended prior to the commencement of the Iraq war had about twice the turnout of what is pictured here. The stage for that event was only one street from the Capital grounds, extended back to the castle, and pushed well into the streets on either side, before you ever considered the continuous line of marchers starting on the north capital grounds, down the mall, around the ellipse, back up the south side of the mall and ending in the growing crowd. It was estimated by coverage to have been 'tens of thousands.'

In my estimate, the Iraq war event was about 200,000, and this March for Life was in the "tens of thousands."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ready4Change (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:22 PM

14. I think they always inflate their numbers....

...to make themselves look more powerful than they really are.

Let them march; it's their right. But so is abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread