by Matthew Hay Brown, updated
If it’s Jan. 22, it must be the March for Life. On the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, demonstrators today are filling Washington hotels, crowding the Metro and jamming up the streets en route to the National Mall, where they will hear speeches and make their opposition to abortion known.
They have been welcomed by Republicans including President Bush, who met with several marchers this morning at the White House.
“Thirty-five years ago today the United States Supreme Court declared and decided that under the law an unborn child is not considered a person,” Bush said. “Biology confirms that from the start each unborn child is a separate individual with his or her own genetic code. Babies can now survive outside the mother's womb at younger and younger ages. And the fingers and toes and beating hearts that we can see on an unborn child's ultrasound come with something that we cannot see: a soul.”
Supporters of abortion rights, meanwhile, are celebrating the anniversary. The National Organization for Women is planning a vigil this afternoon outside the Supreme Court.
“Though we are celebrating 35 years of constitutional protection of a woman’s right to abortion, we cannot led our guard down,” NOW President Kim Gandy said. “With so many limitations and roadlocks, the promise of Roe is already denied to many women, and access to birth control is under increasing attack. This year we have the chance to elect a new administration and send new members to Congress who will help protect and expand our reproductive freedom. Come November we must elect a president who will be vigilant in upholding a woman's right to make her own childbearing decisions, including access to birth control and abortion.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Roe "a cornerstone of the women’s reproductive rights."
“The Supreme Court recognized that a woman has the power and fundamental right to choose what happens to her body and, by extension, her future," the California Democrat said. She pledged to "continue to fight for the right to choose, for safe and quality reproductive health care, comprehensive and medically sound reproductive education, and access to contraception in the United States and abroad.”
Several Republicans noted recent reports indicating a 30-year low in abortions. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner cautioned today that “our work is far from over.”
“This year, our nation will see its 50 millionth abortion since Roe v. Wade, and now we must recommit ourselves to a cause which has made tremendous strides since the 1973 Supreme Court decision,” the Ohio Republican said. “In recent years, Congress has finally enacted a ban on the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion, and states increasingly have passed parental notification laws, as well as measures to ensure women are fully educated about the risks of and alternatives to abortion. And last year, Republicans fought to preserve the Mexico City Policy, inspired in part by the one of the greatest pro-life leaders I’ve ever had the privilege of serving with – former Congressman Henry Hyde – to prevent taxpayer funds from being used for abortion advocacy and services.
“Congress should follow these victories this year by passing the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would ensure an adult cannot take a minor across state lines to receive an abortion without the consent of a parent.”
Despite gains, Bush said, one in five pregnancies still ends in abortion.
“America is better than this,” he said. “We will continue to work for a culture of life where a woman with an unplanned pregnancy knows there are caring people who will support her; where a pregnant teen can carry her child and complete her education; where the dignity of both the mother and child is honored and cherished.”
“Building a culture of life requires more than law; it requires changing hearts,” Bush said. “As we reach out to others and find common ground, we can see the glimmerings of a new America on a far shore. This America is rooted in our belief that in a civilized society, the strong protect the weak. This America is nurtured by people like you, who speak up for the weak and the innocent.”
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Yes, the self appointed moral watchdogs have a lot more prying to do;
1. Eliminate birth control of any kind
2. Outlaw condoms
3. Vilify 'willfully childless couples'.
4. Finish demolition of the wall between church and state.
5. Re-criminalize gays
6. Criminalize cohabitation of heteros
7. Criminalize sex of any kind out of wedlock.
8. Recognize marriages only if sanctified by authorized churches.
Posted by: C.Morris | January 22, 2008 2:12 PM
"If it’s Jan. 22, it must be the March for Life. On the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, demonstrators today are filling Washington hotels, crowding the Metro and jamming up the streets en route to the National Mall, where they will hear speeches and make their opposition to abortion known"
Knock yourselves out, guys, and celebrate the fact that you can CHOOSE NOT to have an abortion. Too bad they aren't pouring their time and energy into the children that are alive and in need. They just can't wait till the kids are 18 so they can send them to some noble war for oil. It's called hypocrisy, folks.
Posted by: DD | January 22, 2008 2:23 PM
Will Pro-Lifers take this opportunity on the Swamp to take an oath to never again receive a vaccination? After all innoculations from thousands of diseases came from WI-38 cell strain or foreign versions of the original WI-38 which is the product of an abortion. Most human virus vaccines produced today come from WI-38. Let's hear it Pro-Lifers, will you take the oath?
Posted by: john | January 22, 2008 2:32 PM
Thank you Baltimore Sun for carrying this story. Very well written and balanced. Not many secular news sources have the guts to cover pro-life stories.
Posted by: KW | January 22, 2008 2:51 PM
The Republicans are like the "Islamofascits" that they claim to hate, dictating to women what they will and will not do to their bodies.
I don't see much difference between our radical right-wingers here in America and the radical Islamists in the Middle-East.
I think I'll call the Rush Limpbag show and tell him this just to hear the sound of his head exploding!
Posted by: John E | January 22, 2008 2:54 PM
Thank you Baltimore Sun for carrying this story. Very well written and balanced. Not many secular news sources have the guts to cover pro-life stories.
Posted by: KW | January 22, 2008 2:51 PM
Yes, KW. You really are oppressed by the secular media, preventing you from private prayer, forcing you to abort babies and insisting that you enter into gay marriages against your will. If only there was an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent god to protect you from all this oppression...
Posted by: a blinkin | January 22, 2008 3:43 PM
One of the problems with abortion law in the United States is that contrary to the vast majority of Westernized countries, this issue was not decided by the people through referendum or legislation, but through unelected judges making not one inferential leap, but two. The first was to announce that in the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, a general right of privacy existed (Griswold plurality). This silly reasoning has been trashed by legal commentators for decades, both foreign and domestic. Any first year law school class should have an exercise to see how many other "penumbras" they can come up with, which would only be limited by imagination. The SC in more recent opinions has shied way from this shaky foundation, but really hasn’t replaced it. The second leap by the SC was that this right to privacy was broad enough to encompass abortion rights (Roe majority). The practical effect of this was to take the core issue out of the hands of the people.
A legislature is in a much better position to deal with the issue of abortion, because it can consider the variety of sub-issues that follow (rights of the father, what if the mother is a minor, viability of the fetus, etc.). Instead, we have had to watch these issues painfully go through the court system for resolutions that often please no one. Courts are only supposed to decide the issues before them, but Harry Blackman tried his best to legislate from the bench with his ill-fated tri-mester approach. That was doomed from the start, and discarded in Casey.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the abortion issue was left to the people. My guess is that abortion would be allowed along the guidelines announced in Casey, that is, when the fetus becomes viable the govt. can protect it. While I am normally a federalist in support of states’ rights over the fed. govt., I think this issue would have to be handled nationally, as it would be both absurd and dangerous for women to have to travel across state lines to where the practice is legal.
Until the issue is decided by the people as it has been in most other civilized countries, this issue will not rest. Additionally, there will be constant, and in my opinion, dangerous, politicizing of the courts. Indeed, whenever there is a SC nomination, the Senate pays lip service to qualifications, etc., but everyone knows the real question is the nominee’s abortion position.
Posted by: Herbie H. | January 22, 2008 3:48 PM
“Building a culture of life requires more than law; it requires changing hearts,” Bush said.
Actually, a "law" cannot change a "culture" at all. That's what the conservatives don't get.
Prohibition sure did alot to change the culture of alcohol consumption, didn't it?
But I am for changing "hearts". And before conservatives try to jump on my "pro-choice" thoughts. I am personally opposed to abortion. I wish I could wrap my arms around every woman considering and abortion, and try to help her "decide" to keep the child. Not "coerce" or "mandate" her to do so.
I often, in my private moments of prayer, pray that God gives these troubled and confused women the wisdom and strength to keep the child.
Laws against the basic right to choose would not be effective in reducing the number of abortions anyway. Just like prohibiton didn't stop anyone from drinking.
It would only criminalize good American citizens who had to make a choice during a time of emotional pain and trouble.
How could you be sure such laws would even reduce the number of abortions? With abortion being safe and legal, there has to be paperwork, like other medical procedures. The millions of women who decide to end a pregnancy would go behind closed doors. Subjecting them dangerous and unsanitary procedures that could result in 2 deaths instead of just one. That's really pro-life of you.
And there would be no "statistics" to even tell you whether such laws have been effective.
The best way to create a "culture" is by first havign a culture of compassion and understanding. We also need to not make everything an "all or nothing" attitude on both sides. I have said before that I am for the "basic" right to choose, but I am not opposed to laws that ban "late-term" abortions.
Of course, there would be extremists on both sides who will only want "all or nothing" and, unfortunately, they usuallly shout the loudest.
I am all in favor of reducing the number of abortions. But "laws" that take the basic right away are not the answer.
Posted by: Steve34 | January 22, 2008 3:52 PM
I think the posts above show who the real raving zealots are.
Posted by: Jeff | January 22, 2008 4:08 PM
Thank you for carrying this story; it is good to see coverage of this in the media.
And I feel sorry for all the pro-choice people on here who felt the need to come on and insult pro-lifers.
Posted by: Eamon | January 22, 2008 4:50 PM
Prayer of the day;
'Lord Jesus, please protect us from your followers'...
Posted by: The Lenin Sisters | January 22, 2008 4:53 PM
Prior to Roe, my home state of North Carolina had a fairly liberal abortion law, but it still required the signature of two physicians other than the abortion provider attesting that the health of the woman would be harmed by carrying the fetus to term. There was also a stringent residency requirement (six months).
While the issue might be slightly less politically volatile if national legislation were enacted by Congress, the absolutist position of right-to-lifers seems to guarantee unending and remarkably irrational debate on this topic in perpetuity.
Posted by: Vance | January 22, 2008 4:57 PM
Its beyond me why anyone would abort a living human being. They said that abortions were down to 1.2 million babies. Does anyone ever consider the potential lost when one of these babies is aborted?. How many doctors or scientists or possible presidents will never be realized from this senseless killing. Please don't give me the arguement that its a womens right to choose. Its time to stand up and grow up and take responiblity for your actions. Get fixed or have the guy wear some protection but don't kill the baby for your own ineptitude.These babies deserve our love and above all deserve to live a full and normal life.
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | January 22, 2008 5:09 PM
Thank you Pro-Lifers for the march. We need to defend the unborn. Unfortunately, they can't speak up for their rights.
Posted by: Pro Life | January 22, 2008 5:16 PM
Will you be the first to take the above Oath Paul Jaeger?
Posted by: john | January 22, 2008 5:16 PM
John E. is obviously not married if he thinks a man can dictate anything to a woman about what she will or won't do.
Posted by: JB | January 22, 2008 5:16 PM
Too bad that the mothers of all the abortion proponents did not also believe in abortion.
Posted by: Grace | January 22, 2008 5:42 PM
When this topic comes up, it's so easy to focus on the opposing sides rather than the middle ground we can all agree on. Let's lift our eyes above the conflict. Let's talk about educating men and women about safe sex. Let's talk about providing access to contraception. Let's talk about how we can reduce the number of abortions without limiting rights. Let's stop screaming at each other and start talking.
Posted by: Find Middle Ground | January 22, 2008 5:54 PM
It is truly amazing that with all the very serious, even dangerous issues this nation now faces: the economy, iraq, climate change, etc. that we continue to bicker about the abortion debate. People on BOTH sides must really not have anything better to do.
Posted by: Chad M | January 22, 2008 5:59 PM
Don't you jerks want to jail all of us who've had miscarriages too? After all, according to you, that was the death of a "human being."
Get a grip! A fetus is not a human being.
And, while you're sizzling over that, I suggest you read the entire Bible, not just the parts that reinforce your holier, better-than-the-rest-of-the-world, self-congratulatory preening, know-it-all judgmental ignorance.
What's that part about walking in another man's shoes? Think about it before you decide you have the right to make Solomon's decision.
Posted by: jmgm | January 22, 2008 6:05 PM
Too bad that the mothers of all the abortion proponents did not also believe in abortion.
Posted by: Grace | January 22, 2008 5:42 PM
Sounds like something Jesus would have said, Ms. Winner of the Least Fitting First Name Ever Award.
Also: Please note that being pro choice is not the same thing as mandating abortions. You zombies seem to have difficulty comprehending this distinction in this and other contexts (e.g., gay marriage). So your hate-filled remark fails on its own.
Posted by: a blinkin | January 22, 2008 6:19 PM
When this topic comes up, it's so easy to focus on opposing sides rather than the middle ground we can all agree on. Let's lift our eyes above these differences and talk about how we can reduce the number of abortions without limiting rights. Let's talk about educating men and women about safer sex. Let's talk about providing better access to contraception and health care. Let’s talk about funding age-appropriate sex education in schools. Let's just stop shouting and start talking.
Posted by: Tracy | January 22, 2008 6:20 PM
The pro-aborts are ill-equipped at using logic. Question for them - why was Scott Peterson charged with double homicide when he murdered his unborn child along with Lacy if the unborn is a "nothing"? Since you believe that a mother has the right to murder a human life, why not give her that option until the child is, say, 2 years old - is that what you want?? First we said that indians were not fully people, then blacks (3/5 of a person), and now its the unborn.
Posted by: Jimmy | January 22, 2008 6:26 PM
Get fixed or have the guy wear some protection but don't kill the baby for your own ineptitude.These babies deserve our love and above all deserve to live a full and normal life.
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | January 22, 2008 5:09 PM
Yep, I knew I'd see a guy's name at the end of this comment...I don't see any male responsibility in your comment. You guys are the first one to high tail it when last night's squeeze gives you the news.
Sorry, but if I'm brutally raped and made pregnant, there's no way I'm maintaining the spawn of that crime.
Posted by: a blinkin | January 22, 2008 6:19 PM
ZING! What a beauty! You said it perfectly.
Posted by: DD | January 22, 2008 7:36 PM
Thank you so much for carrying this story! It is so great to finally get some coverage in the secular media. I am completely baffled why those who are pro-choice get so upset when people gather for a peaceful demenstration. Pro-Lifers are entitled to their opinions just as Pro-Choicers are. The sad part is those who are aborted do not get any say in living or dying. So many people commented above about Pro-Lifers judging those who have aborted. I do not see any judgement here. I see a group of people who are trying to give a voice to those who do not have one. God Bless each and every one of you who contributed to this discussion!
Posted by: TAC | January 22, 2008 9:47 PM
It's funny how the media ignores the fact that Norma Leah McCorvey ("Roe") is now on the good side of the issue.
If it was the other way around, we'd hear about it all the time.
Also, here's a good article:
"Saving the Trees and Killing the Children" by Kyle-Anne Shiver
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/saving_the_trees_and_killing_t_1.html
Posted by: Alz | January 22, 2008 11:02 PM
First flatliners, if Roe vs Wade is overturn it does not necessarily take away your right to slice 'n' dice fetuses. State law would take over.
Second, as you folks like to say about global warming - the "science is settled", human life begins at conception.
Finally, why is it abortion the only thing you flat liners want people to have a choice about? Why not school, retirment funding, ....?
Posted by: Terry | January 22, 2008 11:12 PM
As of evening eastern time, not one second of footage has appeared on television, the only exception being a Catholic channel.
What's all this whining about free choice, freedom and democracy? Doesn't everyone have a right to know about hundreds of thousands of young people marching in our nation's capitol? Interesting.
Posted by: Hasikelee | January 22, 2008 11:45 PM
Finally, why is it abortion the only thing you flat liners want people to have a choice about? Why not school, retirment funding, ....?
Posted by: Terry | January 22, 2008 11:12 PM
Since when does anyone not have a choice about school or retirement funding? Sounds like you're the one who is against personal choice.
Posted by: DD | January 23, 2008 12:59 AM
Ron Paul is expected to receive the endorsement of Norma Leah McCorvey ("Roe").
That should be huge for the anti-abortion values voter, but I suspect their own rabid love of war as well will keep them from supporting Dr. Ron Paul.
Posted by: Rick Cain, Tulsa, OK | January 23, 2008 4:41 AM
Why on earth would anyone consider anything Pelosi says to be important? What could she possibly say that would have a positive effect in anyone's life? War and abortion are weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by: Terri | January 23, 2008 5:23 AM
It's funny how the media ignores the fact that Norma Leah McCorvey ("Roe") is now on the good side of the issue.
Posted by: Alz | January 22, 2008 11:02 PM
While I am glad she has determined she made a "personal" mistake in her life. The "right-wing" media doesn't understand what a hypocrite she has become.
It is one thing for her to say that she regrets her "choice" and if she can use that regret in a constructive way to help other women "choose" life, more power to her.
But to be actively involved in trying to take away a right that she herself chose to exercise is the text-book definition of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Steve34 | January 23, 2008 9:19 AM
"Too bad that the mothers of all the abortion proponents did not also believe in abortion.
Posted by: Grace | January 22, 2008 5:42 PM"
Lot's of women who believe in the freedom to choose an abortion have had lot's of kids, fool.
Posted by: The Lenin Sisters | January 23, 2008 11:07 AM
JB, do you really think any woman could put up with John E.?
Posted by: Jeff | January 23, 2008 11:58 AM
"What's all this whining about free choice, freedom and democracy? Doesn't everyone have a right to know about hundreds of thousands of young people marching in our nation's capitol? Interesting."
Before you get all conspiracy theory on us, keep in mind that every anti-Iraq War march has consisted of over 100,000 participants, but even here in Washington DC, the best they'll do is cover it in the Metro section.
If you don't want an abortion don't get one.
Posted by: Jones | January 23, 2008 12:00 PM
Thank You for covering this Baltimore Sun.
Posted by: Religious Brother | January 23, 2008 12:50 PM
Dumb Dumb,
If no one doesn't have a choice about schools and retirement funding, then I guess the economy is pretty darn good?
I can afford to have a choice (paying twice - once on my own and another time thru my taxes) for my children's education, but can that working family afford to do that?
Wouldn;t that working family really like to have that 12.4% to invest in their choice of investyments which would earn a greater return than SS?
Posted by: Terry | January 23, 2008 7:08 PM
Hey, jmgm: when you wrote, "Don't you jerks want to jail all of us who've had miscarriages too? After all, according to you, that was the death of a 'human being.'" this "jerk" would say that he's truly sorry for your loss. However, the death of a child through a spontaneous means like miscarriage, whether it's because of chromosomal abnormalities, etc. compared with the willful act of killing a perfectly healthy, growing human is vastly different. One doesn't go to the doctor to perform a miscarriage.
And by the way, a fetus certainly IS a human being. The word itself is latin for "little one."
Posted by: DanR | January 23, 2008 11:01 PM
Abortion is wrong, why should a child not have a voice in some way. Just makes me sick.
Posted by: crista | January 25, 2008 7:24 PM
Does anyone ever consider the potential lost when one of these babies is aborted?. How many doctors or scientists or possible presidents will never be realized from this senseless killing.
This is my favorite irrational argument against abortion. The people who make this argument usually neglect to mention that the "senseless killing" could also be the next Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer as well as a possible president or great scientist.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 13, 2008 12:56 AM
Does anyone ever consider the potential lost when one of these babies is aborted?. How many doctors or scientists or possible presidents will never be realized from this senseless killing.
This is my favorite irrational argument against abortion. The people who make this argument usually neglect to mention that the "senseless killing" could also be the next Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer as well as a possible president or great scientist.
Posted by: Anthony from Illinois | February 13, 2008 12:59 AM
I’m strongly against abortion. But why should I buy into the Religious Right’s agenda to force this into law when many have pointed out that in the highly unlikelyhood that the supreme court would overturn itself it would still be legal in the states? I differ with the fanatical anti-abortion people who have tunnel vision and push so hard for that single issue as the defining point of their very being and existence in this world. Their overwhelming passion for this issue above all else has led them to ally with a right wing political agenda in order to get political power to legislate this. The same political right wing that is imperialistic, wages wars to no end, and actually undermines ‘family values’ by a relentless destruction middle class workers rights and benefits. So in my view there is extreme hypocrisy in being fanatically ‘pro-life’ when you support a right wing party that murders millions of people by bombing them and wars simply to extend American global dominance. This is a shame. A horrible shame! I urge you to please reconsider and dissolve all alliances with these devils disguised in sheep’s clothing. So since both the establishment parties of democrats and republicans are both way off base, not to mention the greed and corruption as well that engulfs them. I say the only ‘choice’ is to support a third party candidate such as Ralph Nadar or someone like him who is against abortion but who have the maturity to temper their passion and not forge a theocracy over it! Talk about going back to the dark ages…
Posted by: Bobby | February 24, 2008 6:21 PM
Dear People who believe they know what the rights of the unborn are,
Thank you for standing up for me when I was in my Mother's womb when she wanted to get an abortion, I couldn't speak for myself. Now I am 48 years old, a wife and mom of 2 great teens.
Oh, and you who think it is good to have women/girls get abortions, especially when they've been raped? I have seen the healing of 2 girls who CHOSE to give birth and keep the children. They are precious babies who heal the sorrows of their mothers.
Please rethink what you are saying about supporting abortion. Are you afraid to look at the facts? There is a baby in there, DUH!
Posted by: Pam | March 1, 2008 3:45 AM