Posted on 10/31/2005 2:02:40 PM PST by Pyro7480
Many key cultural and political issues these days are debated and at least temporarily-settled within the marble halls of the Supreme Court. Protesters advocating various points of view on a variety of topics have made the plaza in front of temple-like ediface their battleground. The nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court itself is no different.
Since I work in DC, within walking distance of the Supreme Court, I decided to walk there to see what was taking place on the steps in front of the building. I arrived there shortly before 4 pm, when the National Organizaton for Women was scheduled to have a rally against the nomination of Judge Alito.
To my surpise, there was no one from this organization there. In fact, a group of about 16 college students were lined up side-by-side in front of the steps of the Court, most of them with red tape taped over their mouths. The word "Life" was printed in marker on the piece of tape. Also present were members of the press corps, with cameras and folding chairs.
I talked to two young women who were serving as spokesmen for the students who had their mouths taped shut. They were members of a Christian ministry who hold a vigil every day in front of the Supreme Court. Students come down to DC from many parts of the country for a semester to take part, and while they are not doing that, they live at a study house. I had talked to one of the women before, at an earlier vigil of theirs. She is a nice woman.
Four o'clock came and past, and the NOW gang didn't show up. I talked to one of the spokesmen, and she said that they had heard 4:30 as the start time for their opponents, instead of the 4 pm widely reported (I had heard it on Rush Limbaugh's show).
I started talking to a tourist from Minnesota, and as I was talking to him, the NOW gang finally showed up. The group was almost entirely female, and most of them appeared to be of college age. Only one college-age male, who I think I've seen before at past NOW protests, was with them. None of them fit the "bull dyke" stereotype, though by their appearance, they were pretty readily identifible as left-wing activists. They were holding the typical NOW signs, that feature the NOW logo, and the "Keep Abortion Legal" slogan. There were also a few hand-made signs. One had some kind of saying about Alito being a "trick" instead of a "treat," referring to Halloween, which is today.
The NOW gang started their typical chants like "Hey hey, ho ho, right-wing judges have got to go," and "Racist, sexist, anti-gay; right-wing judges, go away!" Their group numbered about the same as the pro-life group, so instead of facing off with the pro-lifers (which wasn't possible, since they were facing the Supreme Court, and the officers guarding the entrance don't allow activists on the steps), they marched in a circle. Initially, I actually ended up in the center of the circle, since I was still talking to someone. I made my way out of there quickly.
The press ate up their little protest. The cameramen came over and took shots, while the sound technicians recorded their chants. They were chanting so loudly, that I could still hear them more than two DC blocks away while I walked back to work.
As I reflect on the whole event, I find it interesting that both groups consisted mainly of college-aged people. This is a key battleground in the fight over abortion, which is the issue that both groups focused on. The current under-30 generation is a lot more pro-life than their parents are. The equal numbers of protesters on both sides of the issue aren't exactly reflective of the actual statistics. I've been to the March for Life in DC seven times, and the hundreds of thousands who march every year are overwhelmingly under 25 years old. I contrast this with last year's "March for Women's Lives," which also drew hundreds of thousands, but many of them were middle-aged women. The odds are definitely in the favor of the pro-life cause.
Thanks for posting this. Sounds like the time a pro-life friend of mine and I drove over 400 miles just to be able to stand in prayer in front of The Supreme Court of our land when SCOTUS heard the case for and against the cruel and inhumane method of abortion Planned Parenthood et al call D&E and what has been called by us ignorant lay people partial birth abortion.
We stood in a cold and driving rain while several Christian Pro-Life leaders representing so many who couldn't or wouldn't be there with them. There were about 50 pro-lifers and no NOW gang. No MSM interviewed any of us even though they had ample opportunity over the several hours I was there -- even though the MSM had their cameras and their microphones all set up to hear from the reporters and litigants when the hearing was over.
Reverend Mahoney's group was there and had earlier obtained a permit to display a huge sign with a picture of Baby Malachi -- ( an infant literally torn to pieces as all ) and hold prayer vigils in front of the court's steps. The sign had been there for several days before the hearing with no problem. There had been ongoing prayer vigils before this day with no problems -- no sanctions.
But all of a sudden out of the blue, there was a flourish of activity when a SCOTUS Imperial Guard [person] came out of the court and said he had a written request from one of the justices that this group must immediately remove their sign although it had been up in full view for several days in the very same place!!
Some of us evil right-wing, wacko pro-life extremists who had been standing for several hours in the rain were willing to be arrested for disobeying this new, arbitrary subjective and punitive SCOTUS edict that unconstitutionally limited only "certain" citizens' freedoms -- so much for freedom of speech, assembly and asking for redress from our government. We saw several marched away to God knows where and at what personal and financial cost. Some of SCOTUS' prisoners wer elderly men and women.
I am ashamed to say I was not one of them. My friend and I had families to care for on our 400 mile return.
Also, the Imperial SCOTUS Guard reprimanded any pro-lifer who unknowingly stepped on a step leading to the Supreme Court's front door even though other people and tourists were allowed to stand on these very same steps waiting in a long line for a very long time to get a seat in order to hear part of the arguments regarding the newest method of killing late term American children as they exited their mothers' wombs.
No one in the press seemed interested in these matters but then -- the NOW gang arrived and up jumped the press and cameras.
THE NOW gang's leaders immediately stepped up to the micrphones that were positioned on the court's steps. They had a rather small in number gaggle of recruited protesters that defend abortion in their entourage. These few young women performed the same ritual you just described with the same tired and commercial NOW gang signs and NOW gang chants.
Enough -- this all brings back the very sad and heart breaking fact that after this hearing ---our very own Supreme Court denied the right to life of our next generation literally hanging from the birth canals of their mothers' while a so-called medical doctor stabbed their children in the back of their heads and sucked their brains out to collapse their skulls for easier removal. SCOTUS decided that no state could ever again stop "abortion providers" from deliberately and cruelly murdering partially born babies in the most horrendous method ever devised so far in human history.
Just think what would happen to any of us if we treated our pets in the same way.
Supreme Court Weighs Partial Birth1.14.00
By RICHARD CARELLI Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court reclaimed center
stage in the legal and moral war over abortion Friday by agreeing
to decide whether states may ban a surgical procedure opponents
call ``partial-birth abortion.''
The justices said they will review a Nebraska law that made it a
crime for doctors to perform such abortions. A federal appeals
court has blocked enforcement of that law, calling it
unconstitutional.
Nearly identical laws have been enacted by 30 states, but courts
have blocked enforcement of most of them. Congress enacted a
federal ban on partial-birth abortions but President Clinton
vetoed it.
The court has not issued a major abortion ruling since 1992 when
it reaffirmed the core holding of its 1972 decision in a case called
Roe vs. Wade. That landmark decision said women have a
constitutional right to end their pregnancies.
Although the legal controversy swirls around a specific
procedure, far more may be at stake. Abortion-rights advocates
say the court's eventual decision could broadly safeguard - or
dramatically erode - abortion rights, depending on what state
legislatures can consider when regulating abortions.
The court will hear arguments in the Nebraska case in April. A
decision is expected by July.
The surgical procedure involves partially extracting a fetus, legs
first, through the birth canal, cutting the skull and draining its
contents. Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term. Doctors call
the method dilation and extraction, or D&X.
In unanimously striking down the Nebraska law, the 8th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals said the law's wording could also
outlaw a more common procedure called dilation and evacuation,
or D&E.
``Such a prohibition places an undue burden on the right of
women to choose whether to have an abortion,'' the appeals
court ruled.
A month after the Nebraska law was struck down along with
those in Iowa and Arkansas, nearly identical abortion laws in
Illinois and Wisconsin were upheld by another federal appeals
court.
That created a direct conflict legal experts predicted would
require the Supreme Court's final word.
``A constitutional crisis is calling out for a remedy,'' said
abortion-rights advocate Janet Benshoof of the Center for
Reproductive Law & Policy. ``What's at issue is whether a
woman's interest in her health can be trumped by a state
legislature's moral and political statement about a fetus.''
But Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns said, ``I feel strongly that
states should have the right to legislate in the area of partial-birth
abortion. It's a barbaric procedure that I hope is brought to an
end.''
State Attorney General Don Stenberg agreed, adding, ``It shocks
the conscience that in the United States of America a human child
can be literally pulled from the womb and cruelly killed by having
his or her skull punctured and brain suctioned out.''
Stenberg's Supreme Court appeal was bold. He not only urged
the court to reinstate the ban on the D&X procedure but also
asked the justices to reverse past rulings and give states a free
hand to more stringently restrict, or even outlaw, all abortions.
The brief order issued by the court Friday indicated the justices
will not consider that request.
Lawyers representing a doctor who performs abortions in
Nebraska urged the justices to reject Stenberg's appeal because
the appeals court correctly concluded that the law would interfere
with most abortions performed after a woman's third month of
pregnancy.
They said the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, reached
by a 5-4 vote, upheld partial-birth abortion laws in Illinois and
Wisconsin by ``rewriting'' the state laws in an attempt to limit their
impact.
The 7th Circuit court said state abortion laws can be motivated
by ``moral'' revulsion to some procedures so long as they ``do
not harm women's legitimate interests.'' An abortion law can pass
constitutional muster even if it outlaws procedures that may be the
safest method of ending a small number of women's pregnancies,
that court said.
The case granted Friday is Stenberg vs. Carhart, 99-830.
You got it. A common technique is to have the tiny group of liberals march in a circle while the camera is carefully set up to show just one side of the circle. This gives the impression that there is a large crowd marching by and the photographer just happened to select a small part of the group to show us.
I first noticed this in a TV news segment showcasing a GLBT group protesting in front of Focus on the Family in Colo. Springs. I was looking closely at the signs going by and suddenly noticed that they were repeating after a very short while! I guess they depend on the fact that most viewers don't look closely enough to spot this kind of a trick.
The best way to avoid it is to go with a group or have a large Great Dane named Zeus standing next to you (and allowing him to occasionally bark). Barring those two options you have to keep your place out front (with a large sign), move to another spot (if they haven't covered it already), or 'take the high ground' and get you/your sign above theirs.
You may also enjoy this: NOW Is Not the Best Time (An aborted protest in front of the Supreme Court.)
Nice report. Thanks.
I believe you are correct. It doesn't surprise me at all that the MTV News crew reported that incorrectly. It's likely that it is done on purpose.
------------------ ALITO, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.I concur in the court’s judgment except insofar as it holds that 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sect. 3209 (Supp.1991) (spousal notice) is unconstitutional. I also join all of the court’s opinion except for the portions concerning Section 3209 and those interpreting Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 110 S.Ct. 2926, 2949-51, 111 L.Ed.2d 344 (1990), to mean that the two-parent notification requirement without judicial bypass imposed an “undue burden” and was thus required to satisfy strict scrutiny.
excerpt ...The plaintiffs failed to show even roughly how many of the women in this small group would actually be adversely affected by Section 3209. As previously noted, Section 3209 contains four significant exceptions. These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her. If Section 3209 were allowed to take effect, it seems safe to assume that some percentage of the married women seeking abortions without notifying their husbands would qualify for and invoke these exceptions. The record, however, is devoid of evidence showing how many women could or could not invoke an exception.
FN4. The form prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Health for use in implementing Section 3209 requires a woman to certify that she has not notified her husband “for the following reason(s)….” (744 F.Supp. at 1359). Moreover, a false statement is punishable (as a third degree misdemeanor) only if the woman did not “believe [the statement] to be true” (18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sect 4904(b) (1983)).
Of the potentially affected women who could not invoke an exception, it seems safe to assume that some percentage, despite an initial inclination not to tell their husbands, would notify their husbands without suffering*723 substantial ill effects. Again, however, the record lacks evidence showing how many women would or would not fall into this category. Thus, the plaintiffs did not even roughly substantiate how many women might be inhibited from obtaining an abortion or otherwise harmed by Section 3209. [FN5] At best, the record shows that Section 3209 would inhibit abortions ” ‘to some degree’ ” or that “some women [would] be less likely to choose to have an abortion by virtue of the presence” of Section 3209. Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 828, 106 S.Ct. at 2214 (O’Connor, J., dissenting), quoting Akron, 462 U.S. at 464, 103 S.Ct. at 2510 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). [FN6] And even with respect to these women, the plaintiffs did not show that the impact of Section 3209 would be any greater or any different from the impact of the notice requirement upheld in Matheson. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to prove that Section 3209 would impose an undue burden.
Young women serving as spokesmen is an extra demonstration of equality in diversity, as if any such was needed.
If you are willing to give up all principles and all conepts of manliness, protesting with feminists is a great way to get laid. Yes, many of them are lesbians, but there are also a large number of naive rich girls who can be conned by your professed sensitivity.
That's because they have free time.
Anyway, while I of course respect the pro-lifers, what is the meaning of having the red tape on their mouths? Sounds like the kind of meaningless gesture that liberals usually do.
Wow! Pretty good one! LOL
We have a Best of SNL DVD and it has that clip in it. Funny one! Now when I hear that song I think of Will and that cowbell!
How'd ya talk to 'em if there was red tape over their mouths? ;^)
I love this line... "None of them fit the "bull dyke" stereotype, though by their appearance, they were pretty readily identifiable as left-wing activists.
They sure are. LOL
I did a counter-protest about a month ago in Denver against the anti-American Freedom Haters and they certainly have a very distinctive "look."
I belive you. Rush touched on this today. Said that about 20 NAGS showed up to protest. Matches up with your eye witness account.
And STILL this was NEWS! I loathe the MSM. I loathe leftists, and I especially loathe other "Wymyn" telling me how I should live my life. Screw you, Sistahs! I'm doin' it for myself, you useless pieces of...
"None of them fit the "bull dyke" stereotype"
The female at my gym who always wears a NOW t-shirt definitely fits the bull-dyke stereotype. She could probably break me over her knee like a twig. And I'm 6'2", 200#
Excellent report.
So, you asked the pretty conservative girls to the homecoming game and nice parties, and picked up the liberal skanks at bars for meaningless boinking, and then never called them again.
I can't imagine things have changed that much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.