March For Life

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life

Held yesterday and every 22nd of January since 1973

I've been to a number of these and I wonder: Why does it get NO media coverage even though it is considered the most widely attended annual march on Washington every year? Reagan spoke at them, G.H.W. Bush spoke at them - George W. Bush spoke yesterday. Still, I had to read about it in a small sub category on BBC because neither Fox news nor CNN had anything come up on the main pages.

The Idea that a law exists banning democratic dialogue of a deeply polarizing issue and hundreds of thousands march, year after year, for a cause that they view as fundamental to the protection of life and liberty in this country - and it gets NO coverage?

Please explain this to me, regardless of where you stand on the issue. I'm at a loss.

[drone]

Is that why traffic was so screwed up yesterday?


I'm assuming it gets no press because it happens every year for over 30 years. Nothing new to report, nothing sexy or gritty.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Is that why traffic was so screwed up yesterday?


I'm assuming it gets no press because it happens every year for over 30 years. Nothing new to report, nothing sexy or gritty.

Elections are held every 4 years. Tons of coverage (understandably so)

People rally agaisnt the war in Iraq - tons of coverage

the Superbowl is played every year.



I think that people would be interested to realize that our numbers are growing every year. I think that if people knew what the movement was about; Human life and suppression of democracy - they would be very interested.

[drone]

Elections are held every 4 years. Tons of coverage (understandably so)

People rally agaisnt the war in Iraq - tons of coverage

the Superbowl is played every year.

Elections - new candidates, scandals, and issues, hence the coverage, actual result/closure is guaranteed

Iraq war rallies - still kinda hot, but cooling down as an issue

Superbowl - definitely overhyped, but different teams and storylines every year, actual result/closure is guaranteed

March for Life - same issue, same people (or type of people), no apparent end to the discussion = meh.

Excuse my offtopic rant for a bit, but I would appreciate it if rebels with causes would stop organizing Mall rallies. As a resident of the greater DC area, I can truly say that all they do is snarl traffic and piss people off. They get news coverage (sometimes) but they don't solve anything and are so cliched now it's pathetic. The 60s and 70s are over, man, time to come up with a new idea.

[woad&fangs]

Excuse my offtopic rant for a bit, but I would appreciate it if rebels with causes would stop organizing Mall rallies. As a resident of the greater DC area, I can truly say that all they do is snarl traffic and piss people off. They get news coverage (sometimes) but they don't solve anything and are so cliched now it's pathetic. The 60s and 70s are over, man, time to come up with a new idea.

They should also stop dragging their kids along to their rallies. People that do that don't deserve to be parents. This pisses me off regardless of what side and issue is being represented.

Tuff, you're right. American "News" is a complete joke. I stopped watching it a long time ago.

[Ronin]

I'm assuming it gets no press because it happens every year for over 30 years. Nothing new to report, nothing sexy or gritty.

I´d agree that´s most likely it...because this seems like it´s right up Fox News´s alley.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I´d agree that´s most likely it...because this seems like it´s right up Fox News´s alley.

That's why I like BBC - they report what happens, not just what they think matters. If you look up the key words "march for life", on MSNBC, CNN or Fox news - you won't find anything written by them since 2006 (fox). American Media is a crock.

[TinCow]

The Idea that a law exists banning democratic dialogue of a deeply polarizing issue and hundreds of thousands march, year after year, for a cause that they view as fundamental to the protection of life and liberty in this country - and it gets NO coverage?

Please explain this to me, regardless of where you stand on the issue. I'm at a loss.

I don't think I quite understand. What laws bans democratic dialogue on the issue of abortion?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think I quite understand. What laws bans democratic dialogue on the issue of abortion?

I'm sorry - Democratic dialogue through the legislative branch

The Federal Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision became the law of the land, even if it had nothing to do with the legislative process. Along with Doe v Bolton, They effectively mandated that abortion on demand must be available regardless of the laws on the books or legislative action in the future. Their definition of fetal "viability" was relative (you have to remember that this was decided before ultrasound) and their definition of "Mother's health" was extremely relative - allowing any woman to terminate her pregnancy at any time during the 3 trimesters for any reason at all. All they had to say is that they really really wanted it.

This is scary, not only because it states that a mothers convenience is more important than the life of her child, but because it set a trend in the judiciary to create laws arbitrarily - not a function of the Judicial branch. The actors "Roe", "Doe" and the founder of NARAL (all of whom are now PRO-LIFE activists) said that the cases were a sham and meant only to affect policy at that precise point in time when they believed the justices would be sympathetic. They also say that they were lied to across the board.

The reason that Europeans don't hear about this issue much is because they had the opportunity to regulate abortions by making laws through a democratic process. We aren't allowed to do that until the court decision is overruled.

I just wish that people would get up in arms about this. It affects all of us here, regardless of you take on the issue.

[TinCow]

I'm sorry - Democratic dialogue through the legislative branch.

Roe v. Wade has done nothing of the sort. The legislative branch has absolute power over any SCOTUS decision: Constitutional Amendment. The simple fact that an Amendment does not have enough support to get through Congress does not mean that legislative dialog has been silence on the issue. Even if Congress itself was deadlocked, it could be bypassed through a Constitutional Convention by the states themselves. The current situation has nothing to do with a ban on democratic dialog and everything to do with the Pro-Life campaign having insufficient support to pass an Amendment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Roe v. Wade has done nothing of the sort. The legislative branch has absolute power over any SCOTUS decision: Constitutional Amendment. The simple fact that an Amendment does not have enough support to get through Congress does not mean that legislative dialog has been silence on the issue. Even if Congress itself was deadlocked, it could be bypassed through a Constitutional Convention by the states themselves. The current situation has nothing to do with a ban on democratic dialog and everything to do with the Pro-Life campaign having insufficient support to pass an Amendment.

The idea is this - The Supreme court didn't have enough cause to rule in that direction at the time. They cited rules of privacy that did not exist in the amendments used and, even if they did, should not have trumped life.

A two thirds majority for an amendment is what we need? That is Judicial activism at its worst. Why don't they just rule how they'd every issue to pan out? The Legislative branch should be required to justify itself to the Supreme court each time. Unacceptable. When Congress is deadlocked the issues should be defaulted to the states in general.

Do you believe that this is reasonable? Was it truly a good move? Does it strengthen the Union, does it protect the lives of those affected by its decision?

[rvg]

The idea is this - The Supreme court didn't have enough cause to rule in that direction at the time...

The judges certainly thought the cause was sufficient and I happen to agree with them. As Tincow pointed out, if the people *really* want to see a blanket ban on abortions, it can be done via the amendment that the SC will not be able overturn. Clearly, not enough people want such an amendment, which imho is a good thing.

[TinCow]

Do you believe that this is reasonable? Was it truly a good move? Does it strengthen the Union, does it protect the lives of those affected by its decision?

I make no comment at all regarding whether the decision in Roe v. Wade was correct or not. I have no intention of discussing that in the Org backroom. I am simply stating that you are incorrect in saying that SCOTUS bans legislative discussion on an issue. You are using the Constitution itself to show how their actions are unfair to the population, but the Constitution itself provides a specific means of overcoming just such an block. SCOTUS has been overruled in just such a manner before, most significantly in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The system works if it is used properly.

[Caius]

Please explain this to me, regardless of where you stand on the issue. I'm at a loss.

MEdia covers the success that spread panic between the population, or are common. Specially CNN. They spread terror when the country fights terror.