Pro-Choice Rally: The Signs

There were as many ways today to express opposition to the Supreme Court’s possible overturning of Roe v. Wade as there were people on the Ruth Steinkraus Cohen Bridge.

Here are some of them:

(Photo/David Vita)

(Photo/David Vita)

(Photo/David Vita)

(Photo/David Vita)

(Photo/Bobbi Essagof)

(Photo/David Vita)

(Photo/Bobbi Essagof)

(Photo/Bobbi Essagof)

18 responses to “Pro-Choice Rally: The Signs

  1. Evan Stein

    I agree with all the signs except “Seriously, my mother already marched for this.” — it’s as likely (if not more) that it was some of these Women’s grandmothers. So angry. So convinced that more than half this country is going to be pushed backward 50 years.

    • Bobbie Herman

      I’ve been marching for Choice since the beginning. I marched in Washington in 1989. My granddaughter has been marching wherever there’s a rally near her. I did not march today or last week as I have had conflicts.

      I’ve actually been marching for over 60 years for many causes — Civil Rights, Gun Control, Anti-War — as well as Choice. I often wonder if it does any good.

  2. Jack (75 next month) Backiel

    I saw the sign “Not going back to 1970.” I’d love to go back to 1970 and know what I know today!

  3. Susan Iseman

    Several of the SC Justices are Catholic. I was raised a Catholic and can relate to Maureen Dowd’s op-ed today in the NYT. Here’s a portion of it:
    “…But it’s hard for me to watch the church trying to control women’s sexuality after a shocking number of its own priests sexually assaulted children and teenagers for decades, and got recycled into other parishes, as the church covered up the whole scandal. It is also hard to see the church couch its anti-abortion position in the context of caring for women when it continues to keep women in subservient roles in the church.”

  4. Melissa Ceriale

    The best line i saw this week: We are all pro life. You are either pro-choice or anti-choice.

  5. David J. Loffredo

    Trying to thread the needle, not interested in being personally attacked.

    There were somewhere between 600K and 900K abortions in the US last year.

    Preventing birth technology has evolved a lot since 1973. A lot.

    There has to be a better path. If you’ve lived around the country, this is a lot closer to 50/50 than the numbers reported by what’s been mostly acknowledged as a pretty liberal media.

    As someone who has lived in the NE, the MW, and the South, I support letting the States sort this out. Worked for COVID, should work for more things than less. The US is a melting pot, people will migrate to the places the feel most included.

    Regardless of your views, protesting outside a Judge’s home is categorically wrong. Google Judge Esther Salas.

    • Steve Stein

      I am curious- would condums, IUDs or contraceptive pills be allowed? Would sex education be allowed in schools so kids would know how babies are made?

      Your calculations predict 600 to 900 thousand unwanted births a year- by definition- abortion = unwanted. A question- will there be drop off zones with adequate infant services available and funded to care for those babies. How many state run orphanages are there in our future?

      If one does not study history- one will repeat the mistakes of the past!

    • David, protesting outside ANYONE’S home is CATEGORICALLY RIGHT, protected by the SC. So even if YOU’RE myopic enough to think it’s wrong to protest, do not defile the Constitution, the Supreme Court and American freedoms by saying it is “categorically.wrong.”

    • Russell Gontar

      The better path is to ensure that a woman’s right to determine her own health care decisions doesn’t depend on which state she happens to live in.

      You know what else is categorically wrong? States forcing 11 year old children who have been impregnated via rape/incest to give birth.

      • Dan Herman

        Lots of things depend on your resident state.Your drivers license, voter requirements, death penalty, taxes to name a few. SCOTUS just realized that abortion laws are not their bailiwick.

        • Russell Gontar

          Yes, lots of things depend on your resident state, but not everything does or should. I draw the line at forcing children, victims of rape/incest, to give birth based on where they happen to reside. What is this, some kind of a casino? Call me eccentric, but that strikes me as barbaric.

          The protections afforded by Roe have been in force for 49 years. They are woven into the fabric of American life. They are an expected norm of the high quality of life achieved by the United States. Roe granted the American people new protections they didn’t have before.

          Since when is the Supreme Court in the business of taking rights away from the American people? The goal is a more perfect union, not a lesser one.

  6. Dan Herman

    PLEASE read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights)

  7. Steve Stein

    If the SCOTUS actually overturns Roe, under the tenth amendment the power falls back to the individual STATES and to the PEOPLE. This covers all the powers not listed in the constitution as Federal. State laws can be made by legislatures and changed by statewide referenda. I hope there are enough voices in all state to demand and force referenda on choice to be held. Referenda represent the direct voice of the people and should supercede the gerrymandered representative districts that allow a minority to control a majority.

    Pre Roe when I was in Medical School (1962 to 1966) it was drummed into us during our Emergency Room and OB-GYN rotations that any woman of child bearing age (13 to 50) presenting with the complaints of fever, lower abdominal pain and a vaginal discharged was to be considered a septic abortion until proven otherwise! Many of these young women wound up with overwhelming infections, sepsis, scarred uterus or fallopian tubes and often underwent total hysterectomies to try to save their lives.

    It is truly sad that the pre Roe history might repeat itself and that basically a group of old men will make the rules for young women’s bodies when polls show the majority of Americans favor keeping Roe the law of the land.

  8. Chris Washington

    He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
    Micah 6:8

    • Tom Prince

      “…No soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but to the extent of its capacity; neither shall a mother be made to suffer harm on account of her child….”

      • Chris Washington

        How shamefully manipulative of you to truncate the Koran’s true meaning of Mother and Child:

        “Mothers shall suckle their children for two whole years; (that is) for those who wish to complete the suckling. The duty of feeding and clothing nursing mothers in a seemly manner is upon the father of the child. No-one should be charged beyond his capacity. A mother should not be made to suffer because of her child, nor should he to whom the child is born (be made to suffer) because of his child. And on the (father’s) heir is incumbent the like of that (which was incumbent on the father). If they desire to wean the child by mutual consent and (after) consultation, it is no sin for them; and if ye wish to give your children out to nurse, it is no sin for you, provide that ye pay what is due from you in kindness.”

  9. Dan Herman

    Rather than allowing abortions right up to the seventh or eighth month why not give birth and shoot the baby?