Advanced Search

Rally Cry for Life Continues 35 Years After Roe v. Wade

By
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Jan. 22 2008 09:53 AM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

Jan. 22 marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized what pro-lifers call "abortion on demand." Over a third of a century has passed since the controversial case yet many participating in pro-life events Tuesday will say: the fight is far from over.

Enlarge this Image
March for Life
(Photo: AP Images / Mike Wintroath)
An anti-abortion advocate holds a sign during the 30th Annual March for Life rally, outside the Capitol in Little Rock, Ark., Sunday, Jan. 20, 2008. Tuesday will mark the 35th anniversary of the Jan. 22, 1973, U.S. Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.

At the nation's capital, hundreds of thousands of life advocates are gathering for the 35th March for Life to remember the 50 million preborn lives that have been lost since the high court's decision on abortions.

In 1973, the high court voted 7-2 to overturn all state laws banning abortion. The ruling in Roe v. Wade and its lesser-known companion case Doe v. Bolton made abortions legal for any reason through the first six months of pregnancy.

The decision also changed the landscape of national politics, dividing the nation into two camps: those who supported and those who were against abortion.

Today, the public opinion on abortion appears to support more limits on the procedure. A December Time magazine poll revealed that more than half of Americans oppose abortion in nearly every circumstance. A Fox News poll in October showed that 45 percent of Americans want to know a candidate's position on abortion before they vote.

"Fortunately, the pro-life movement is making significant progress in the battle for hearts and minds," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

"In spite of having virtually all of the nation's elites and virtually all of the secular, opinion-making sectors of our society adamantly opposed to it, the pro-life movement has risen to a place where significantly more than two-thirds of Americans are opposed to most of the reasons that women give for having an abortion.

"The country is moving strongly in a pro-life direction, and we have every reason to believe that trend will continue," said Land.

Many pro-life supporters say they are certain more people would back restrictions against abortion once they learn about the detrimental effects of abortion on all parties involved.

"Abortion doesn't only hurt women and kill children; it can also deeply wound the men it touches," said Matt Barber, policy director of Cultural Issues for Concerned Women for America.

"I'm sad to say that I know this from personal experience," continued Barber, who imagines having a 22-year-old daughter today. "Along with the realization that a woman has chosen to end the life you helped to create, comes a profound sense of loss and guilt."

More knowledge and more information are the keys to what abortion opponents believe will help shift more Americans in favor of the pro-life movement.

Some pro-life advocates have incorporated a push for ultrasound technology behind their pro-life message, hoping the images will help women make a more informed decision regarding their pregnancy. Focus on the Family offers a program that funds the devices for pregnancy centers.

The evangelical group has also joined a number of pro-family groups in launching a quiz to test the knowledge of Americans on what the Roe case actually allows or restricts. Available at RoeIQTest.com, the quiz asks viewers 12 simple questions on the Supreme Court decision.

Most Americans who took the quiz failed. The average is seven correct answers or 59 percent passing.

"The assumption that most people support Roe is not only flawed but flat out wrong," commented Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

"When people learn the details of Roe, their support declines."

But until that support leads to the overturn of the landmark decision, participants for pro-life rallies like March for Life are expected to march on.

For Tuesday's rally, marchers are gathering for a pre-march rally at the National Mall and then proceeding to the starting point for the rally which begins at noon at 7th St. and Madison, NW.

They are marching under the 2008 theme: "Build Unity on the Life Principles throughout America. No Exception! No Compromise!"

The march is one of many events taking place on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Over 25,000 life advocates gathered in San Francisco last Saturday for the 4th annual Walk for Life West Coast.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
Dagny
  • Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:27 pm
  • : 1
  • : 1
  • Flag
Citizen -

It's obvious I've been wasting my time. You don't want to consider anyone else's thoughts. At least I made an attempt to speak to your viewpoints. Peace. Out.
Citizen
  • Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:04 pm
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
Dagny: Your "various point" was a very involved response to my comment that your definition of "terrorist" was flawed, because it would apply more broadly than you want. That in turn, was a response to a comment that the insurance rates of abortion providers would go down if they stopped offering abortions, and insisted that every client carry their pregnancy to term. In other words, what argument are you currently making? I'm talking about abortion, about how the rights and interests of the pregnant woman need to be balanced with the interest the state has in potential persons. You all seem to suggest that these potential persons should be treated as the same as an actual person, but you don't offer anything in support of that position but religious platitudes. I'm asking you to get beyond sectarianism, and reason in a way that persons who disagree with you on religious matters could accept.
Dagny
  • Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:02 am
  • : 2
  • : 0
  • Flag
Citizen -

Is that the best you've got? Your one sentence response to my lengthy comment (Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:19 am ) leads me to believe that my argument has much more substance that anything you have offered. Can't you respond, in a reasoned manner, to the various point that I put forth?

Don't wantt to give you too much to think about but would like to add this:

Science is nothing more nor less that a hypothesis which is tested and either validated or invalidated. If it is validated, further testing is required... with enough data validating the hypothesis, it becomes "theory," perhaps even "law," but never "truth." Don't believe me? How about when the scientific world believed that the world was flat? Scientific theory or law holds only up to that point where information previously unknown becomes known and changes the equation. This is called progression.

The idea that we are designed with perfection and purpose is supported by everything we observe in "life," down to the incredibly complex "simple cell." These observations are evidence of some higher purpose, a creator.

If we are the result of random and "spontaneous" ("billions of years" of spontaneity, mind you), then it's pointless for you and I to even argue about this. Life is a meaningless progression of change for the sake of change and human life is no more significant than the "life" of the chair I'm sitting on.

If on the other hand there is a perfect Creator who has designed all of life with this perfection and purpose, perhaps we had better discover want he wants us to know.
Citizen
  • Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:45 am
  • : 0
  • : 3
  • Flag
Dagny: Well, you have no scientific evidence for your creationist position, so it seems inadvisable to make national policy on that basis.

ChicagoMel: The interests of the potential life, and the rights of the pregnant woman do need to be balanced. That's why, as the pregancy advances, the interests of potential increase until, at viability, they can trump the rights of the pregnant woman, so long as her life and health is preserved. Until that time, the fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body, and so is properly regarded as part of the woman's body, and her rights control.
ChicagoMel
  • Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:18 pm
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
I think education and outreach can help a lot...it seems to me that there are far too many unwanted pregnanacies because people are too open and free with intercourse. (Not sure if the S word is allowed here) Teens in particular and people in general aren't aware of the consequences of their actions, and often feel pressured to "do it".

I also think a change in culture is needed; it's time for society to wake up and stop seeing unborn children as somehow less than human, as less valuable than born humans. People need to accept the reality that they're human, and that it's wrong to kill them, unless the mother's life is at risk.

Still it always sickens me when politicians can go on and on about the mother's rights or women's rights....I would love to see people ask them "what about the child's rights? Don't they matter at all? Doesn't the child the mother is carrying have any value or meaning? Why is it less important to you than the woman? Why don't you think it also deserves protection?"
Dagny
  • Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:20 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
correction:

"meat and vegetables"
Dagny
  • Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:19 am
  • : 4
  • : 0
  • Flag
Good morning Citizen and thanks for your "analysis" (using the term loosely here)

So now we are comparing the lives of newly created human beings to.... plants and vegetables? Okay...

Would I be correct in assuming that you are an adherent of the theory that completely random acts of mass, evolving over billions of years is the only explanation for why we are here? Of course, if we ARE all random bits of evolutionary accident, then it makes sense to equate human life with plantlife, with diseased dogs, cats, cows... etc. I, on the other hand, believe that God created man in His image, "above all creation, just below the angels," and that He further created each "after its kind."

You take it even further by assuming that one who equates the taking of human life with murder (morally speaking, of course since the law has made this form of murder "legal"), that such a person would consider our national defense to be unimportant (ie: equate soldiers with terrorists) - wow. Rather than call my arguments absurd, don't you think you should explain your own a bit better??

My initial response was to your emotianally-charged "radical Christian terrorist" comment. You might have noticed that in the NEXT paragraph I stated very clearly that anyone utilizing violence to end violence was wrong and that a Christian to do so would make him/her a living, breathing contradiction.

Let's be really clear though: defensive use of force is not violence, (as in defending the nation, defending your property, etc.), the use of offensive force is an act of violence.

In summary then, I eat both animal and vegetable, believing that God created them for our nourishment, and in the case of animal: with strict rules for the human taking of life... (this "humane" taking of animal life would include vetranarians and slaughterhouses using methods which would not be considered "cruel").

I believe that one of the limited functions of government, as laid out in the Constitution, is to provide for the national defense, that is to act in defense only against another nation and not "pre-emptively" which is just another term for offensively, which is wrong.

Have to run for awhile, I'll check back later. Hope you have a really great day!
wilderness
  • Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:16 am
  • : 0
  • : 1
  • Flag
Would anyone like to submit to a special experiment? Such as, being placed inside the replica of a womb and then being aborted without anesthesia. Of course, all actions are stopped just short of ripping off body parts…

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59805
wilderness
  • Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:02 am
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
Strange, that there are those who wish family and friends “happy birthday” but then hold hands with murder to keep others from hearing those same words.
Citizen
  • Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:37 am
  • : 0
  • : 3
  • Flag
Dagny: You must not eat meat or vegetables, because those animals and plants were killed by terrorists, according to you. How about war? Are you a pacifist, or do you support the taking of life by our troops? Are American soldiers terrorists? How about vets and animal shelters? They regularly kill pets suffering from fatal diseases, and unwanted strays as well. Are they run by terrorists?

In summary, your position is absurd. I suggest you rethink it.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here