In a first, March for Life to rally outside White House
With an abortion rights supporter in the White House, the March for Life is planning to add Lafayette Park to its itinerary for the 37th annual event this month.
Organizers of the March for Life, which annually draws at least tens of thousands of demonstrators to the National Mall on the anniversary of 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, say they have secured a permit for 3,000 marchers for a first-ever flashlight vigil in the park across the street from the White House on the evening before the main event Jan. 22.
“Because the March for Life … is on the Mall at a long distance from the White House, it is necessary to bring the Life Principles to the President of the United States,” reads the agenda for this year’s event.
The main event remains the march itself, during which participants are encouraged to visit their congressmen and senators. The March for Life Fund, meanwhile, will send letters describing the Life Principles to Obama, the chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court, and every member of the House and Senate.






Comments
I hope this causes all unborn babies to leap in their wombs. It sure beats them trying to hold on while a suction device attempts to pull them out.
Posted by: Clay | January 8, 2010 6:51 PM
I guess we should at least be thankful that a bunch of absolutist forced breeders coming down on the White House, is not yet an armed mob, but I suppose that that is only a matter of time. When people rally to take away the rights of their fellow citizens in the name of narrow doctrinaire, sexist, religious dogma, it is only a matter of time before they started shooting and blowing up their opposition. Oh wait, they already started doing that, didn't they?
Posted by: Robert Littel | January 9, 2010 8:21 PM
Robert,
Notice Clay has fetuses leaping for joy in wombs across the US---it is not surprising that the man identifies closely with fetuses--next he will have zygotes springing to action and speaking in tongues through the placental barrier. What a man--sure beats sucking out the fetuses? Clay since you will never be pregnant--unless you are a female masquerading as a male called Clay--since you will never be pregnant, your misogyny manifests itself in your writings in all and sundry forms--an overwhelming love for fertilized ova seems to spring eternal in the bosoms of the Jesus freaks--the name of their game is control--pregnant uteri being targets.
Ravensfan Anon
Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2010 9:31 PM
Ravensfan Anon - Maybe some of the voices in his head Clay hears taking to him are fetuses too. Hell, I'll bet he thinks that have formed a gestational choir to sing to the other voice in his head that he brags so much about. He really should get on, stay on, or have his lithium dose increased.
Posted by: Robert Littel | January 10, 2010 10:49 PM
All life is a sacred gift. No baby is ever convenient or easy, so if we base decisions on who is worthy to live based on when the "timing" is right, then most of us would never be here.
An unborn baby is every bit as much of a human and worthy of life as an old person who needs assistance and help. At some point in our lives we will all be an "inconvenience" due to a medical condition, age, etc., and God help us if we have no one willing to make a personal sacrifice to care for us. Through abortion we are setting a terrible example as a nation killing those who are powerless to defend themselves. It's really sad.
Posted by: Kay | January 18, 2010 12:04 AM
Kay - Your argument has one fatal flaw. There is no evidence that a fetus is sacred. Sacred is a religious term that implies that some god creature imbues a fetus with person-hood at the moment of formation. There are those who believe that person-hood is a matter of self-awareness that occurs much later in fetal development, like when the fetus is slapped on the keister and starts noisily announcing its displeasure at being thrust into the world. It can be conceded that the fetus should be protected once viability (without extraordinary support) is achieved, which is in the third trimester, but to assume that the religious position should be forced on the totality of society is absurd and clearly unconstitutional under the Separation Principle of the Establishment Clause of The Constitution. You are free, in our society, to practice your beliefs by not having an abortion if you so choose, but if you insist to holding a figurative gun to the heads of women to force them to breed against their will, you run the risk of a backlash that could very well cause religion trouble they dare not stir up.
Posted by: Robert Littel | January 18, 2010 9:49 AM
Robert Littel - There are a few flaws with your argument. First once born it is a child not a fetus. Even the most steadfast abortionists admit that reality. The Establishment Clause is completely irrelevant in the abortion debate. That clause is to keep government out of interfering in religious matters. Since this is a question of protecting life not establishing any religion or relgions using it to support abortion in absurd.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2010 2:43 PM
Fake Anonymous - In as much as you represent a mindset that wants to turn this nation into a theocratic dictatorship, making the Separation Principle of the the Establishment Clause of The Constitution totally meaningless, you will have to forgive my not taking anything you have to say about anything, seriously. The greatest flaw in your presentation is the horrible thing you are doing to that wonderful, highly evolved organ you are wasting between your ears.
Posted by: Robert Littel | January 18, 2010 4:06 PM
Bobbie Little – I guess when you can’t give an intelligent response all you can do is personally attack someone. Given your obvious lack of knowledge on the Constitution and medical terms it was to be expected I guess. Perhaps you can answer the next two questions intelligently without the childish personal attacks. How exactly does pointing out the flaws in your argument support such a claim about me? Read the two definitions before responding to the next one and use the adjective definition for fake.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anonymous%20
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fake
How can anyone be a fake Anonymous? Please share some of that vast knowledge in that highly evolved organ of your with me on those two questions. Oh and Bobbie save the name calling it just makes you look simple minded. Anyone can use a lot of words, but it takes someone wise to actually say something enlightening.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2010 11:53 AM