Breaking News From Jan 22 Pro Choice March

Thanks to all who came out today. I would have joined you but I am feeling under the weather and am cooped up at home today (which is close to Fisherman's Wharf, so I would definitely have been there were I not sick).

I hope this emboldens us to continue to fight back against the American Taliban. I think we should pay them back for this by having loud, raucus (but non-violent) pro choice demonstrations in the heart of so-called "red state" America.

It would also be a good idea to gather and present the statistical data which--if I am not mistaken--shows that when reproductive rights (including easy access to good sex education, contraceptives, and--in some cases--abortions) are curtailed, public health suffers.

We also need to counter the lies spread by the American Taliban promoting their so-called "abstinence only" sex-education (which statistically doesn't work), and spreading lies about abortions (they actually claim that abortions cause breast cancer!)

Anyway, keep up the good work and continue to fight the good fight.

-Steve

Fucking petty ass SFPD motorcyclists sabotaged my bicycle on the side of the street while I was checking out the blockade against the anti-choice crowd. A vendor said that a white motorcycle officer(almost all are white so that doesn't really help)took some parts from my bike and put them in his front pocket. Amyway just goes to show that you can't trust SFPD for shit and that they are petty ass people, stealing fajitas and now bike parts.

The only arrest of the day seemed to be a young punk kid for making too much noise at the pre-rally for the anti-choicers.

You folks are on the right side of history and you are going to win!

great job by those who showed up. There were some truly epic moments. Like the pro-choicer running into the religios fashists march witha beutiful pro-choice sign. To those she bumped and elbowed? You're welcome! You had it comnig to you. Get out of our city! Freedom of speech shouldn't be given to the brainwashed.

We do have to do a better job next year. The anti-choicers only had 6 buses from other cities and still had us outnumbered at least 5 to 1. How could we let locals in SF outnumber us? Even if we say that the majority of their crowd was over 35, we still have to admit that their 16-25 year olds outnumbered ours.

Don't wait till next year to get involved! Every Saturday more and more anti-choice creeps are showing up at abortion clinics RIGHT HERE IN THE BAY AREA. Get involved in clinic defense, especially in the East Bay before things get really ugly. We chased them away from the San Francisco clinics, we can do the same in the rest of the Bay Area!

I think we did the best we could. We have a major effort in front of us. The thing that I noted was that although the faith-based community seemed to be pre-dominating, there was also a strong scent of secular humanism wafting from the anti-choice crowd...I think they are looking for a universally sacred moment to enshrine in the midst of so much that is profane ( like the war, for instance) and settling on conception and birth as that moment...on Channel Seven, one women who was interviewed said, sort of anxiously, that "you know, not all of us are religious...some of us are Democrats" referring to the sizable numbers of Democrats for Life, an anti-choice democratic contingent that is being courted by some members of the Democratic apparatus (Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, among others have made overtures to the leaders of Dem's for Life)
I think that many people in America don't know what to make of 32 years of Roe v Wade and are looking for a quick and easy translation of what it means for women.
The right is presenting a clear translation/narrative by identifying/ propelling individual women, who have "re-canted" to the microphone, to become the first chorus of individual "grassroots" voices to break the privacy surrounding the act of abortion and publicy re-cant...when America hears individuals speak against their decision, they are also hearing them speak about it. They are hearing a clear transaltion. It's an easy narrative thread to follow...and, I think it's been successful.
I'm appreciative of the support shown by city officials, but I don't feel that that approach is going to provide any lasting impression. It doesn't/wouldn't read with anyone but us. It's opaqe, and bureacratic and it doesn't provide a countering set of stories that people can use to understand the full import of Roe v Wade. 16 (i'm using this number arbitrarily) women who are willing to publicly affirm their commitment to intentionally reproduce (or not), and who are willing to speak publicly and posititvely about their abortions will be much more memorable than a city official jeering at Bush...

>>"Get out of our city! Freedom of speech shouldn't be given to the brainwashed"

Then you, child, must leave rapidly.

I've now seen the same person calling themselves "lesbiansforchoice" and "bitchesforchoice" advocating violence and telling lying stories about knocking people over or spitting on them. It's just a little pseudo-christian white boy. ignore him.

Why do leftists support islamic culture - a culture that oppresses women?

you don't control the uteruses of the world. deal with it.

Who are you talking to?

I'm asking why leftists are so supportive and defensive of Islamic culture when Islamic culture oppresses women?

Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive cars, vote, or work regular jobs. Women are not waging war on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabi is not doing this for defensive reasons. Saudi Arabia does it because it is the capital of Islam, and Islam oppresses women.

Why are you comfortable with this?

you're a right wing troll. it's quite obvious really.

you wanna specify whether you're pro-choice or anti-choice? or just keep trolling?

If you were to actually read what any leftists say, you'd see that this isn't true.

The rightists, including the current administration, and Bush Sr. and Reagan, all gave superconservative regimes in the middle east weapons to defeat communist groups, and now there are only a few liberal and leftist groups left in the middle east. For instance, check out a copy of Rambo from the store to watch Syllvester Stallone helping the 'freedom fighters' who later became the taliban defeat the communists in Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein is another authoritarian rightist who was paid by the CIA in the 60s to help bump out a more progressive leader who they didn't like, and then was given more weapons in the 1980s to help him solidify his power. In Iran, the reason we helped kick out the old leader and put in the shah, was became of anticommunism. Most iranians you meet in the US are leftists who had to flee when the shah fell, and when there was a big gap created by the absence of liberal alternatives, there was only islamism to take its place.

Perhaps you should view Michael moore's latest movie Fahrenheit 9/11 to see a leftist criticism of Saudi Arabia, and strong alliances between the Bush family and the bin Ladens. Why is the Bush administration propping up the dictator of Pakistan... you tell us?

The Iraqi people themselves, like the turkish, were actually among the most secularized and educated societies in the arab world. Too bad so much was done to stop this.

it's about our rights over our bodies.

"cp" (see Sun, 3:22pm and 2:45pm above): "Perhaps you should view Michael moore's latest movie Fahrenheit 9/11 to see a leftist criticism of Saudi Arabia, and strong alliances between the Bush family and the bin Ladens."


Actually, it was also a racist (anti-Arab) criticism too. Michael Moore led us to believe the easiest, most biggoted, misdirected thing for many of us to believe: that the American president wakes up *EACH* and *EVERY* day all frettin' about what the *Saudis* think -- but not a word about what Israel and the domestic Zionist/Israel lobby thinks. I don't think that Saudi Arabia was (at the least) particularly keen on the U.S. invading Iraq -- but guess who *was*!?

It's not Saudi Arabia that can have *at least* 94 Senators publicly and conspicuously trotting, en masse, down the steps of our national capital to issue a letter to an American president, condemning him for issuing the *mildest* criticism of Israel's latest civilian atrocities in a territory that international law says that Israel is *illegally* occupying and building Jewish-Only settlement subdivisions, towns and cities on, stealing Palestinian water and land for them, and criss-crossing that territory with Jewish-Only roads. It's not Saudi Arabia that can have nearly every American newspaper columnist suddenly criticizing (directly or indirectly) an American president every time he might dare to even mildly criticize Israel for its collective punishment excesses against Palestinian civilians.

Likewise, Indymedia can have articles and comment posts criticizing Saudi Arabia all we want -- and none of them will ever 'mysteriously' disappear, be hidden, or be deleted by Zionist hackers or infiltrators. (That's why I have to keep copies of my posts to possibly have to repost later. And, in fact, the Sunday 2:45pm poster is more than likely a Zionist. Zionists are also the people who always harp on ANSWER, in actuality because of huge support for the Palestinians in ANSWER rallies/marches, though Zionists use other reasons to attack ANSWER because most leftists wouldn't support the real reason.) Saudi Arabia won't start web attacks on Indymedia sites and keep trying to sic the FBI on them, sabotage the sites, or shut them down through creating internal strife, or denial of internet access services.

As we all know now, it was Israeli Mossad agents, posing as New York city moving company employees (or students working for a moving company) who were caught cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center. It was an Israeli prime minister and a former prime minister (Sharon and Netanyahu) who, at first, said that 9-11 was "a good thing" because it brought the U.S. govt and Israel closer together. And it even might have been Israel that could have given the U.S. govt and media advanced warning of 9-11, but didn't.

It's wan't wrong for Michael Moore to examine the ties between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia and 9-11, but it was racistly wrong (anti-Arab) for him not to examine ties between *Israel* and the Bush Administration -- filled with Zionist Jewish neocons (often with greater allegiances to Israel as a Zionist state) who are the architects of our foreign policy -- and 9-11 *TOO* and to *ONLY* examine Saudi Arabia's possible involvement in 9-11, and to *NEVER* examine Israel's connection to the phony WMD pretext and the U.S. invasion of Iraq!!

Michael Moore showed *only* stereotypes of swarthy Saudi Arabians wearing robes and head scarves while Bush constantly offered his hand and bowed his head in fealty. It would be like a documentary only showing patriarchal orthodox Jews in hairlocks and black garb, or only showing cliquish Jewish bankers with conspicuous diamond rings, wearing obviously expensive suits with gold chain watches, as Bush practically bowed and kissed their rings.

Of course, if Michael Moore had told the truth about who American presidents *REALLY* wake up every day and fear the most about offending -- the most powerful lobby actually based in DC, a lobby so powerful that it is known all over D.C. as just "The Lobby" -- Hollywood would have never allowed his documentary to be financed, made, distributed and shown all across our nation -- and American Zionist Jews would have smeared Moore as a raging anti-Semite.

I agree that Moore's film was pretty racist in how it demonized the Sauids. Instead of attacking conditions in Saudi Arabia or really goinginto any details it just showed pictures that played off racist steretypes. But, In terms of not going after Israel and instead focusing on the Saudis I think there is a much simpler explanation than racism. First, its a bigger discussion. If Moore had wanted the film to also dicuss Israel to an audience that knows little about the history he would have had to include 15min+ of history and with a lot of his foucs on Iraq and the crackdown on dissent in the US there want really room for it. I also think he wanted to avoid controversy because any attack on Israel would have turned all discussion about the movie into a dicussion of Israel rather than Bush (which was his aim since it really was an election year film aimed at the American electorate and seemed less concerned with really teaching people about dynamics in the Middle East).

I partly agree with you and I partly disagree with you. (But, I do thank you for your appreciative reflection and respectful critique of my post above.)

First, of all, it wouldn't necessarily cost Moore 15 minutes of background info on Israel per se to deal with Israel's close (actually in-house) connections to the Bush administration too and our investigation of 9-11. And there were plenty of other places in his documentary -- including the excessive time spent on graphically stereotyping Arabs/Muslims -- from which he could have taken 2 or 3 minutes here and 2 or 3 minutes there to compensate for time.

AND THOSE MOVING COMPANY MOSSAD AGENTS CHEERING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WOLRD TRADE CENTER WERE *ALSO* QUIETLY SPIRITED OUT OF THE COUNTRY TOO, ONCE THE GOVT FOUND OUT WHO THOSE 'MOVING COMPANY EMPLOYEES' REALLY WERE?

Every American knows that Israel and the domestic Zionist/pro-Israel lobby has a stranglehold on (or holds sway over, to put it less provocatively) American *Mideast* foreign policy. So, Michael Moore doesn't need 15 minutes to give people a background on that. And everyone knows that if anyone criticized Israel/Zionism that Zionist Jews will come down on them like ugly on an ape, smearing anyone who criticizes Israel/Zionism as a raging anti-Semite who wants to see another Jewish Holocaust.

And, of course, Moore, as you said, "wanted to avoid controversy because any attack on Israel would have turned all discussion about the movie into a dicussion of Israel rather than Bush" -- WHERE ZIONIST JEWS AND THEIR LOBBY WOULD HAVE TARRED MOORE AS A RAGING ANTI-SEMITE!!

But, Moore didn't have to go after Bush at the RACIST expense of Arab and Muslim people all over the Western world and especially, by particular inclusion, all over our country -- given the, indeed, sometimes, HOMICIDAL (to which Moore's documentary may itself have contributed) and typically PERSECUTORIAL atmosphere (both legally and socially) against Arab- and Muslim-Americans in our govt's (and our Zionist Jewish neocons) imperialist racist contrivance: "the clash against civilization".


"um": "But, In terms of not going after Israel and instead focusing on the Saudis I think there is a much simpler explanation than racism. First, its a bigger discussion."

I respect and believe that you sincerely believe that, but it's also an excuse. We both know and expressed understanding as to why Moore could not have included Israel in his examination of possible connections to both 9-11 (before or after the fact) and the war in Iraq. But, I just say, don't go *ONLY* after Saudi Arabia, but *NEVER* even give even a hint about Israel -- and don't pretend that Bush *ONLY* frets over what the Saudis think, but doesn't fret over what Israel thinks. Moore not only turned a blind eye to Israel in his 9-11 documentary, Moore has pretty much turned a blind eye to any deeper understanding of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict itself as Jewish (instead of Christian) European brutal colonialism and apartheid -- because he secretly knows that understanding it would morally compel him to take a public stance in clear support of Palestinian human rights. That, he knows, would risk the possible end of Michael Moore as a nationally-distributed, major movie theater, documenary filmmaker.

But, Moore was patently endangering the very *lives* of ALL Arab- and Muslim-Americans/immigrants -- and anyone racistly mistaken, or subsituted, for them -- in his zeal to have gotten Bush's re-election defeated.

We say "not in our names"; I also would say "not at *any* cost".

Can you debate Michael Moore's film elsewhere? This thread is about discussing/debating the pro-choice rally on January 22nd.

they just want to get flaming about their issue.
To the trolls:
If you have nothing to say about abortion then shut the hell up, there are plenty of other threads where you can jerk off.

If you religious rightwing nuts don't have anything constructive on the pro-choice issue, then shut your pie-holes. We like being able to use abortion as our chosen method of birth control. We like engaging in free love orgies and having unsafe sex with our bodies and not having to be concerned about the consequences. This is 2005; get with the program! Keep your laws off my body! And abortion is not the only issue here. Prostitution should be legalized! If I want sell my vagina for money ... hey ... IT'S MY GODDAM VAGINA TO SELL!!! You religious nuts don't have to buy it if you don't want it!!!!!!

Whackos......

There are so many woen out there..smart, intelligent women who are otherwise able to hold forth on the issues of the day except for abortions...I feel that as a community that we are
a. linked by either supporting abortions as one of many reproductive startegies or as
b. women who have had abortions who support it as a reproductive strategy and who could speak to it as having a positive impact in their lives
However, I feel that women are not speaking up as forcefully as they could..in the meantime people like "Cherry" will be able to dominate this forum with their adolescent nonsense.
Come on ladies! What are our ideas? How often do we get together to discuss them? How well do we know each other?

I think we strong women and feminists should all refuse to have any more babies until they impeach Bush. We should choose instead to abort our fetuses until the neocons bring the troops home. We should not choose to breed more babies for their armies.

PROTEST THE WAR: ABORT AN UNWANTED FETUS TODAY!

It's obvious to me that Cherry's sarcastic tone is an effort to make the point that we, as a society, should not necessarily condone irresponsible behavior. And marching around with a sign advocating the slaughter of an unborn fetus just because some individual was too irresponsible to take the appropriate birth control precautions before having promiscuous sex, such behaviour is advocating exactly that. The government enacts laws all the time dealing with how we can and can not use our bodies. Immoral drugs are illegal. Prostitution is illegal. Suicide is illegal. Sure, you can engage in these activities if you choose. This doesn't mean that we, as a whole, must collectively condone these sorts of behaviours. Why should we? Why should we condone regressive behaviours that serve no purpose but to exacerbate the decline of human civilization? We shouldn't.

don't forget to remind men about taking responsibility for THEIR "promiscuity".

you all seem to want to blame women for being irresponsible. That's quite a paternalistic argument. Men aren't responsible for what they do with their willies I suppose. Solution: chastity belts for all sexually active males?

Of course, they're not the one's having abortions. And, oh yes, they have no say in if whether or not the woman they impregnate has an abortion. So men don't have as much at stake in in being sexually responsible or in refraining from sexual promiscuity. This issue is a woman's issue, and the responsibilty of the moral decision to condone or condemn abortion lies almost exclusively with women. Do you think men care if you abort your fetus? Almost universally they do not...

by Excuse me?, Mon, 9:39 AM: "Can you debate Michael Moore's film elsewhere? This thread is about discussing/debating the pro-choice rally on January 22nd."

It's kind of like an abortion. If you don't personally believe it to be an option to consider (in this case, my response to another person), then *don't*. It's your free choice. If you don't want to read it, then just skip over it to the next comment.

A woman, in a response to a prior tangential challenge, responded to the tangent (which often occurs in indy discussion threads -- it's called free expression) in relation to the issue at hand in this thread. So, I responded (in, hopefully, an articulate, informative way) to her thoughtful comments, but -- in part -- what I believed was her very important analytical omission. It was an omission which can dangerously affect women who are, or are perceived to be, Arab or Muslim, based on scandalized stereotypes -- and an omission which can even threaten their lives. Our exchange wasn't a non-sequitur. Just because you are not interested in considering it, doesn't mean that no one else would be. I believe in a woman's right to choose.

If you don't believe in having an abortion, then don't have one. If you don't believe in "free love" orgies, then don't go to one. If no one is forcing or coercing you or any woman to "sell your vagina" (assuming you're even a woman), then don't. We supposedly live in a democracy, not a theocracy. We believe in giving women informed CHOICES about HIGHLY PERSONAL decisions dealing with their own health, bodies and lives, not in right-wing religious morality police (mostly men by the way, imposing their religion) turning women into criminals and throwing them in prison.