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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

If used properly is the key.

I maintain, as do many SCOTUS justices and people who follow their verdicts, that Roe was an example of Judicial activism and had no real foundation in the Constitution.

I favor a repeal of that verdict as a better way to deal with the issue, on either a State or Federal Legislative level. Do you agree that we can find a compromise? In my opinion, a belief that we can't is a disbelief in the efficacy of the legislative process to decide our laws.

Where will you discuss this issue. The floor of the House?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

But what if some people don't want to see a blanket Ban, what if they want a compromise that can actually get through the House and Senate? OR what if they want to deal with these things on the State level?

[TinCow]

The floor of the House is the proper and traditional place to introduce a Constitutional Amendment, so yes. All you need to do is convince one Congressman to propose it, and suddenly you've got your legislative debate. Clean and simple and exactly by the book.

On a more practical level, it also appears to be almost certain the a Republican presidential victory in 2008 would also result in an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Stevens most certainly will not last until 2012, so if a Republican becomes the next President, he will have an iron-clad method of doing so. Once Stevens is replaced, then you simply need to bring a new abortion case before the Court, which shouldn't be too hard.

I just don't see how the abortion discussion has been stifled in any way by the judiciary branch. It's been one of, if not the, most important social issues in American politics since the 1970s. Every single President has been on one side or the other. I bet every single Congressman is on one side or the other. It is an issue in every Federal election in this country. How is the discussion being stifled?

But what if some people don't want to see a blanket Ban, what if they want a compromise that can actually get through the House and Senate? OR what if they want to deal with these things on the State level?

A Constitutional Amendment does not have to be a blanket ban on abortion. It can be anything you want it to be. There is nothing stopping anyone from coming up with a compromise and passing it as an Amendment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The best route for everybody is an overturning of the decision with a moratorium until a conclusion can be worked out on a State by State basis. I would even stop complaining for a Federal compromise.

We run into problems when issues are strong armed.

By the By - we do have the popular support with regards to much more regulation, but the House Democrats have become increasingly more loyal to the NARAL and Planned Parenthood lobbyists (among others). It is a disproportionate representation. People become more pro-life, Democratic party leaders become more pro-choice. They wouldn't let any amendment go through.

I think that you know that.

[doc_bean]

The debate is over 30years old. The match is not new, shocking, worrying, funny or anything else that would make it get screentime. It's just not News(tm).

[TinCow]

By the By - we do have the popular support with regards to much more regulation, but the House Democrats have become increasingly more loyal to the NARAL and Planned Parenthood lobbyists (among others). It is a disproportionate representation. People become more pro-life, Democratic party leaders become more pro-choice. They wouldn't let any amendment go through.

I think that you know that.

I fully agree that in the current situation a Constitutional Amendment would have absolutely no chance of passing. In reality, that is why it never gets discussed in the legislature: it's pointless. There are not enough votes to overturn it via Constitutional Amendment, so they don't waste time on the issue. That is sensible, as I would prefer to have our government working on things it can change rather than things it cannot change. In contrast, abortion is a major and often-discussed issue in all previous (and current) Presidential campaigns, as the President's ability to appoint SCOTUS justices directly impacts the result. In that area debate occurs because it is useful and pertinent.

I do disagree with your statements about further regulation being stifled. The partial birth abortion ban was passed and recently upheld by SCOTUS, who found that it did not conflict with Roe v. Wade. In addition, Roe specifically allows for individual states to impose other restrictions on abortion, such as parental notification for minors, mandatory waiting periods, and mandatory counseling. In addition, the states are also free to regulate the legality of second and third trimester abortions. In practical terms, the only thing the states cannot do is ban first trimester abortions. Thus, the system already allows for a great deal of leeway and regulation on a state level if the people wish it. Since many, many states have adopted these restrictions, the system seems to be working properly to me.

[Papewaio]

By the By - we do have the popular support with regards to much more regulation, but the House Democrats have become increasingly more loyal to the NARAL and Planned Parenthood lobbyists (among others). It is a disproportionate representation. People become more pro-life, Democratic party leaders become more pro-choice. They wouldn't let any amendment go through.

Then use the democratic process and vote in enough pro-life congressmen rather then pro-choice congresswomen er men.

I think after 30 years one can expect that it is condisdered by the silent majority to be the norm. You need to invigorate them in a manner that will not alienate them.

Also a march that increases in number over the years isn't really that great a thing as population levels (despite abortion) do grow and most events that are popular are growing at faster levels then the march.

Also the march doesn't fullfill the cardinal rule of news... that it is new.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Then use the democratic process and vote in enough pro-life congressmen rather then pro-choice congresswomen er men.

I think after 30 years one can expect that it is condisdered by the silent majority to be the norm. You need to invigorate them in a manner that will not alienate them.

Also a march that increases in number over the years isn't really that great a thing as population levels (despite abortion) do grow and most events that are popular are growing at faster levels then the march.

Also the march doesn't fullfill the cardinal rule of news... that it is new.

Right. I am trying to invigorate them to elect pro-life representatives in all areas of government. New Yorkers have a particular antipathy to pro-lifers and it is something that I strive to overcome when we start talking about the election. I won't vote for candidates who are pro-abortion unless they support the overturning of Roe v. Wade. (which a number of people do).

I wish that the Democratic party would be open to the idea - as so many of their constituents are.

[Papewaio]

Problem is that with politics people vote for what is most important to them right now.

Yes 3 years ago they could have been screaming at the same government over issue B, but right now there most important issue A is what they are supporting.

And that is another thing, prioritisation. Not only do people have to care about something, but it is horse trading. They will have to have it as one of their top 5 issues and in a close race where the contenders are similar in a lot of issues, then the voters have to have anti-abortion as number 1 otherwise another issue will swamp it.

Imaginary Voter:
List of priorities

1) Tax cut in half for his pay bracket.
2) Increase in the Surge and better body armour for troops.
3) Better servers and access for all to the Org.
4) Higher literacy rates for young children.
5) Anti-abortion

If two options are held before him at the elections and the first one is:
1) Yes
2) Yes,
3) Yes,
4) Yes,
5) No
vs option two.
1) No,
2) Yes,
3) Yes,
4) Yes,
5) Yes.

His priorities place 1) as number one, everything is secondary. So he ends up voting for his tax cuts and hoping one day to get a 5 x Y.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree. I keep it at #1 in principle so that nobody forgets about it. #2 is economy, #3 is Health Care, #4 is Defence.

I recently changed my #3 and #4 because i realized that there are other ways of getting people health care without the government running the show. (Similar to the way small businesses band together to buy larger group plans). Plus, I have a whole slew of deadly diseases that I'm sure will start to take their toll soon.

Defense is after economy because of the old guns vs butter argument.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with the general response. There is little of the "man bites dog" left to the story and "dog bites man" rarely gets past the back pages.


Roe v Wade was a very poor decision in Constitutional terms, though many find it morally correct (I believe them to be wrong, but I'm a Right to Lifer).

Scott v Sandford was a reasonably good decision in Constitutional terms, though most of us -- and many at the time -- found it morally abhorent.

So, the SCOTUS has been wrong before -- for a variety of causes -- and will probably be so from time to time in the future. It is a human institution after all and none of us are flawless at all times in all things. On the whole, having the SCOTUS operating at a slightly more powerful level than originally envisioned by the framers seems to have worked reasonably well -- though I wouldn't mind a bit more legislative re-assertion from time to time. Still, it's too good a political cover to "let the court decide" so we'll be stuck with some lemons too.

Now, as to a 2008 GOP president setting the tone for the court, I am not quite so sanguine. A 2008 GOP president who does not come away from the elections with a 2-3% victory will be hamstrung in the Senate. No nominee of decisive passion opposing Wade is likely to get past the Senate -- they too will know the stakes. I believe the Senate is fully capable of stalling any nom of this importance until a milk-toast nominee is selected.

[Pannonian]

I believe the Senate is fully capable of stalling any nom of this importance until a milk-toast nominee is selected.

What does this term mean?

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What does this term mean?

Somebody "without flavor." Smebody who will not rock the boat, who simply responds to the moment, with no particular agenda. Innoffensive but innocuous. Seen it spelled milque-tost.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Somebody "without flavor." Smebody who will not rock the boat, who simply responds to the moment, with no particular agenda. Innoffensive but innocuous. Seen it spelled milque-tost.

I've seen it spelled as o-b-a-m-a...

[Lord Winter]

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.

There is the 9th addmendment to which the founders basicly put in as a catch all for any natural liberties that they didn't foresee. Now if this right to privacy extends to abortion may be dabateable but I think we can all agree that the founders would consider privacy itself as a natural right and thus coverable by the 9th addmendment.

Also the suprume court is checked by both the presidental appointment and congressional nomination thus it can at least get preaty close to the feeling of the times.

and then if all that fails theres the consituational addmendment like Tincow says.

[Lemur]

TuffStuff, the march got coverage here, in the National Catholic Weekly. Not exactly MSM, but it's something, and there's lots and lots of Catholics. Sort of a bittersweet editorial, now that I read it ...