The March for Life Is Also a Women’s March
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The March for Life is, at its core, a women’s march.
January 18 marks the 46th annual March for Life held in Washington, D.C. The rally champions life, especially of the unborn, by challenging Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. Each year, the march boasts high-profile speakers and attracts up to hundreds of thousands of marchers – young, old, men, and, yes, women.
The march calls attention first to the humanity of the unborn. But that’s why it’s also a women’s march: the event values all persons equally from their conception, whether male or female.
It’s a march for women, by women. Women support unborn life regardless of race or sexual orientation. They are Republicans and Democrats, religious and secular, feminists and those who shrug off the label. But this past year’s media coverage disguises women as a rarity – if not an oddity – in the pro-life movement.
Reversing Roe, a Netflix documentary released in September, features 13 women who supported abortion, and only one pro-life woman. That was the filmmakers’ choice: pro-life women confirmed they were interviewed for the project – some for days.
And, when abortion becomes more accessible, many media celebrate it as advancing all women. In May, the networks applauded Ireland’s vote for abortion as a “women’s rights” win. Women’s magazines did similarly.
The media’s narrative echoes abortion activists’: out-of-touch men are the pro-life movement. Just after Christmas, #ShoutYourAbortion co-founder Amelia Bonow blamed her abortion troubles on “old white dudes in the government.”
But pro-life women exist. An Aug. CBS/Refinery29 poll revealed 72 percent of millennial women are likely in favor of abortion restrictions. On Jan. 15, a Marist poll found 75 percent of Americans – including women – agree abortion should be limited to the first three months of pregnancy. Nationally, women lead the pro-life movement, like March for Life president Jeanne Mancini.
“Every abortion harms mother and baby,” she stressed, adding that past marchesaimed to “bring to light the truth that life is the empowering choice for women.” The 2019 theme emphasizes science’s role in the pro-life movement, from revealing the unborn baby’s unique DNA at fertilization to its heartbeat at six weeks.
"It's a scandal that many journalists and media ignore embryology specifically, and medical and scientific reality generally, in order to serve as, in effect, marketers for the interests of the abortion lobby," commented Americans United for LifePresident Catherine Glenn Foster. She agreed the march represented especially “women and the vulnerable.”
Pro-life leader Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director, will speak at the march she called “inherently pro-women.”
“All women, she said, “deserve to have their stories told, not just those whose circumstances and values align to those of mainstream media.” Those included former abortion workers, represented by Johnson’s group, And Then There Were None.
Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins added the march “is the most pro-woman event in the nation” because “we want help all women, no matter their stage of development.”
As the head of New Wave Feminists, Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa said, each January, she attends two women’s marches: the March for Life and the Women’s March. “We would help so many more women, both born and unborn, if we were able to join forces and work together to better advocate for ALL women,” she stressed.
Unlike the March for Life, the Women’s March is recognized for representing women. The event, which began in opposition to President Trump in 2017, occurs a day after the pro-life march for “all women.” But from its inception, the Women’s March either uninvited or refused pro-life groups led by women as partners. Soon after, it partnered with Planned Parenthood and adopted an abortion-friendly platform.
Instead of seeing disagreement as an opportunity for dialogue, the Women’s March cut itself off from women who are different. There are areas both sides might unite on – from providing resourcesfor women keeping their babies to fighting sex-selective abortion that ends millions of female fetuses simply because they aren’t as valued as males.
Many see those challenging abortion as wanting to control women’s bodies and personal decisions. The difference comes in that pro-lifers see two people, not one, in every pregnancy.
It's time the media and women’s movements acknowledged the pro-life women who march for life because they believe women's rights – and human rights – begin in the womb. They don’t march specifically for women or female fetuses. They march because, from their beginning, women are persons just as much as men.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
176 visitors
Attempts to limit or prohibit abortion in not being for women's rights. Just the opposite. But there are plenty of women who are pro-choice too. So this so called march is not likely to change anything, especially the Roe ruling, which itself has withstood the test of time and multiple challenges, only to be reaffirmed! But hey, people are free to whine about abortion all they want. If they don't like it, they are free to not have it. They simply cannot tell others what to do regarding their choices!
Which is demonstrably and legally inaccurate!
We shall see. It may face it's real challenge in the coming years, but it would seem that at the very least it will become more restricted. BTW, as a Republican, I should thank that Court for it's Judicial overreach, the pro-life movement found it's home in the GOP and they might not like what Trump says, but they know he is their best hope.
I think the ailing Justice Ginsburg said it best:
"Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring un-constitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on...to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force, would there have been the 20-year controversy we have witnessed?"
The Court crossed a line that day.
It's already faced multiple challenges over the years.
Abortion rights was more restricted when Roe was originally decided. Subsequent legal challenges and reviews have only loosened such restrictions and expanded women's right (regardless of certain states attempts to reverse it). Restricting it would only unnecessarily restrict women's rights.
And the pro-life will always be countered by pro-choice. It's been going on for decades now.
That was in 1993 and Justice Ginsburg was referring to the Court's thinking on the Roe matter, not the decision itself. She clarified her statement during her confirmation hearing however: "Abortion prohibition by the State, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men. That was the idea I tried to express ....”
You need to remember the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. In that ruling the Court refused to overturn Roe, BUT significantly modified it. As part of overturning a PA statute (that ordered a married woman to notify her husband of her intent to have an imminent abortion) because the Court said it imposed an "undue burden" on the woman, they created a new standard at odds with Roe's "Fundamental Right" of a woman. Under the "Fundamental Right" standard the early restrictions of a pregnancy were unconstitutional. After Casey some of those restrictions are now valid.
The Court also upheld statutory provisions requiring a woman to wait 24 hours before an abortion. The trimester framework was also repudiated.
I am familiar with the case. Casey expanded women's autonomy and rights in regards to abortion. Being required to notify a spouse (or anyone else for that matter) curtails a woman's autonomy. It also established abortion permissibility at the point of viability, which is a reasonable amount of time. In effect, without getting in too deep with regards to the details or specifics of the case, Roe was not only affirmed, but expanded upon.
Vic, you might want to consider the possibility that lines you (or the anti-choice minority in this country) draw don't really count.
I've always been in favor of letting women decide the abortion issue. Men should have no say in it at all.
Pretty much along the same lines.
Unless I wake up tomorrow sporting a vagina, I am entitled to my own opinion on abortion but that's about as far as it goes.
It's the progressive dream.. I Only blacks decide questions for blacks, only males have a say in male issues.
The idea that a black woman could represent a white male is preposterous, per progressive logic.
Segregate everyone into biological groups! So what if we went to war to end such thinking.
Also, and here's the obvious point progressives miss, women's lives are ended by abortion.
Look at China and how many millions of lives were ended, just because they were women. Sad how happy liberals are to kill women.
What a stupid statement.
You never miss an opportunity to make thing's even sadder, though, HA(etc,etc). And this is another one.
They are free to march all they want and have the opinions they have but, they are not free to tell another woman what her choice should be when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.
Plain and simple...NOT your uterus NOT your business.
You should have that slogan copyrighted, there is money to be made on that one.
Kidding to one side, life would have been so simple if the law had been written that way cannot disagree with one word you said.
"Instead of seeing disagreement as an opportunity for dialogue, the Women’s March cut itself off from women who are different. "
There is but one of the differences, the other being the disparity in coverage by the msm
Another is characterization.....
To the political women's movement, the opposition is characterized as all men all the time. therefore oppressive. In maintaining that characterization, they HAVE to ignore the women that disagree with them and have since the beginning. And If you understand the arguments against bigotry, those that are ignored are a voice that needs to be heard and protected.
Gays were forced into the closet for many many decades, now they are forcing many many women into the closet cause their rights to be heard are not valued.
Also note one thing, the activist court established many laws against the tide of public opinion at the time of pronouncement. Miranda, Escobedo and several others along with Roe.....
You don't hear of those being challenged and argued as Roe has been since it was pronounced, do you?
Why? cause they were just rulings establishing procedural rights plainly spelled out in the constitution.
Roe on the other hand has been challenged since it was issued because it is an unjust ruling. It goes too far it creates a complete underclass of women that disagrees with it and believe that their rights to choose are being trampled by Roe....
And this disparity is plain in the so called "women's movement" completely ignoring the women who are against Roe.......
Roe was a political decision it has held on this long because of the political environment. That environment is changing and we will see changes to Roe if not a complete repudiation.
A good result cause the political charade of Roe has gone on way too long..... It has created a permanent underclass of Women which are having their rights trampled under the rights of those who agree with Roe's dictatorial absolutism.
Just court decisions do not get challenged since there holding is issued. Roe has been cause it is an unjust decision based upon an assumption, that ALL women want the same thing.... We see that assumption made by the political leftists all the time...
There are 3 choices in dealing with an unplanned pregnancy
Birth and keep
Birth and adopt out
Abortion
One set of women want to take choice no. 3 away from all women and they are free to choose not to have an abortion so how are their right to choice trampled by Roe.
One set of women want to retain all 3 choices and leave it up to the individual woman to decide which choice is best for HER
So who's choice is always threatened to be taken away, not the women who oppose choice no. 3
BTW, conservative christian women have abortions too you know.
I've already expressed my opinion on the abortion issue, and it is no different than what you have expressed here.
Legally there are issues with the Roe decision, Unjust issues.
I believe that a right to have an abortion is not inopposite of a right to life for a mother or child
The real test of the rightness or justness of a position is will it stand the test of time. Will the right to have your own choice survive Roe is the real question.
I think it will cause it is just, without the extreme legal positioning the Supreme Court made to justify their decision.
Hence, even without Roe, I think the right to choice survives challenge. With maybe some limitations and protection for those children that make to birth.
I view this as the reasonable, middle of the road, decision/position.....
You and I are not that far apart and our differences are I feel mostly political in nature lady in black.
Such as?
What if a woman chooses to have an abortion because she simply does not want to be pregnant?
Well, it's already stood for nearly half a century.
If Roe were to be overturned (highly unlikely), then women would effectively lose their choice, or be at the mercy of individual states regarding abortion.
Abortion is already prohibited after the point of viability, unless there are medical issues. That seems reasonable.
You're trying to compare abortion with segregation? Really?
Morality is irrelevant, as morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Not likely to happen though. Reversing Roe would effectively limit or remove established rights for women. There is not one instance, in the entire history of the court, where rights have been revoked once granted. But it's clear you think women should have their rights forcibly removed.
How about we outlaw abortions around the same time we outlaw privately owned weapons? We all want to support "life", right? Personally I think I'd rather keep both things legal and let people choose for themselves.
Abortion is an absolutely necessary medical procedure XXX, I do not understand your abhorrance to it....
Pro-choice is NOT in-opposite of Right-to-life......
If all life matters, then choice is the only answer......
Should Roe be overturned, ABSOLUTELY! not because of what it effectuates but because of the way it did it.
I would rather give up a few undefined pre-persons than give up the life of the woman.
A society is somewhat graded on it's ideals of the sanctity of life. And I find it hard to accept that the life of a woman is less than the potential life it can create.....
Your bloodlust is unwarranted.....
I completely agree that the Government should not be in the abortion business in any manner whatsoever. That is not a life issue, but as a society I for one do not want to go back to an age where women are dying cause of a mistake made when they were less than coherent....
The law is correct, fix the underlying irrationality in justifying the creation of it and leave the rest be.......