Crossposted @ freewriters.ca/blogger, a fledgling blog with voices from each side of the aisle. moderated in tone to catch them pesky fence sitters.
A Day At The Mall
Impressive.
Estimates on size range from around 250,000 to over 1 million. Considering the size of the crowd in that picture, I'd lean towards the latter, but personal bias helps color that decision. It's a real pity the parks service no longer does official estimates, as they did before the million man march.
It really is a shame that all these terrorists were allowed to gather in our nations capital, though. Or perhaps Karen Hughes was mistaken when she equated pro-choice positions to that of Al Quaeda and radical Islam: "I think that after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life," ... "And I think those are the kinds of policies the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy and, really, the fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life." Which, of course, implies that anyone who is Pro-Choice has the same value system as Islamic fundamentalists hell bent for leather to destroy Western Civilization. This, of course, isn't even accurate in the context of abortion, seeing as it's against Sharia to have an abortion, making it a crime punishable by death in some Islamic nations.
Regardless, the current battleground in the war between pro-choice and pro-life factions remains Partial Birth Abortions. Court injunctions have halted the recently passed ban, and both sides are girding for the coming court battle. This is a law I believe will, and should be struck down. The law was passed without a stipulation regarding the mothers health, and considering the nature of the D/X procedure, it is one that takes place extremely rarely and virtually only because of danger to the mothers life. There can be no denying that the procedure is brutal, and that the child might survive should the birthing process not kill it and their mother, but the coverage of what a D/X procedure entails, and when and why it's used, has been both poorly covered by the media, poorly explained by the pro-choice side, and well defined by the anti-abortionists. The anti-abortionists have been able to advance the argument that Partial Birth Abortion (their term, also) is not a medical procedure almost always used as a last resort to save at least one life out of a very difficult pregnancy, but instead an option that women and doctors use to kill a child that could survive out of the womb. This argument, if true, would be damning. But it isn't. The pro-choice side has done a relatively poor job moving the chains and getting their side of the story out. Thus public opinion could very well support a partial birth abortion ban, and at the same time misunderstand what the bill will do.
Despite their victory in framing the issue, however, the anti-abortionists have a fatal flaw in their bill. The current Supreme Court will likely strike down the PBAB because it lacks a stipulation allowing for the D/X procedure to protect the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest. This was the same issue that caused two prior PBAB's to be vetoed by the Clinton administration. Amendments to protect the mother's health and rape victims were proposed to the current bill, but defeated by the Republican majority. As such, the bill will likely be unconstitutional if the SCOTUS follows previous precedent. To me, personally, this represents a certain disingenuousness on the part of anti-abortionists. They know that the bill will likely not pass the Supreme Court, but refuse to make the bill constitutionally sound. This will create a backlash among those on the right who feel strongly about the issue, and rouse the base for the coming election. It would be difficult for those who support abortion (a plurality in all cases, and a massive majority in the case of rape, incest, and health of the mother) to oppose such a ban, and would also allow those who need such procedures to receive the necessary care. If the anti-abortion is serious about this, they have to start acting like this, instead of playing on emotions for political purposes.
Update: Upon looking at the Polling Report #'s found above, Americans support a Partial Birth Abortion Ban, but don't support one that doesn't take into account the mothers health. Which is exactly what I had expected.
Update II: What are our best ways of stiffening the back of our senators to oppose such a bill? and what can we do to reframe the issue so that we're not constantly on the defensive about something that by all rights is supported by the majority of american people?
