Chris in my comments section was kind enough to direct me to her first-person account of the march last weekend. And unfortunately, that was on my e-mail account at home. Could you post the URL in the comments section so I can include it, please? [ETA: It's here. Thank you, Chris!]
Anyway, there was the march. The NYT began the coverage on April 24, 04, with "For Abortion Rights Cause, a New Diversity," which examined the way first-generation Americans regard reproductive-freedom issues in context to the cultures from whence they came. It ran the number piece, "Hundreds of Thousands March for Abortion Rights," in today's paper.
The WaPo coverage was slightly different. To their credit, they ran a piece profiling the flare-ups between the marchers and the handful of counter-demonstrators: "Antiabortion Rally Confronts Huge March." That piece featured Randall Terry predicting a generational backlash:
"Young people are rejecting the pro-choice ethics of their parents," said Terry, 45.
Although one supposes Terry is familiar with children rejecting the principles of their parents ("Randall Terry Fights Gay Unions. His Son No Longer Will," WaPo, April 21, 04), he seems to be asserting his belief counter to both the NYT numbers piece and the WaPo numbers piece ("Women's Rally Draws Vast Crowd"), both of which noted the passing-of-the-torch theme in the event, with younger women becoming more engaged.
(The WaPo also ran a baffling piece, "Body Politics," that puts forth the radical idea that there were a lot of people at the event, many of whom looked different from one another. Normally, I am filled with the Hank Stuever love, but not this time.)
The WaPo numbers story also noted:
Bush stayed at Camp David in the Maryland mountains until late afternoon, when he returned to the capital.
So much for the idea that Bush couldn't help but notice the goings-on.
Before we're all swept away on a wave of sisterly activism, it's worth reviewing the NYT April 25, 04, piece "Abortion's Opponents Claim the Middle Ground." This piece lays bare the incrementalism policy some groups are using to gradually chip away at the legal foundation of abortion by countering with other legal rights that take precedence.
For example, take a look at "Pharmacists' Moral Beliefs Vs. Women's Legal Rights," (CSM, April 26, 04) in which several pharmacists object to aspects of doing their jobs because it violates their religious liberties. I'm going to point you again to the Findlaw commentary, "When Types of Discrimination Compete for Legal Recognition." I'm also going to wonder if perhaps pushing an issue on religious grounds won't actually foment a backlash among other religious folks who are questioning why their denomination has elected to focus all its energy on one tenet of a rather comprehensive human-rights ideology ("Catholics Question Abortion Focus," WaPo, April 26, 04) instead of promoting all its beliefs equally.
All this is a roundabout way of saying that the reproductive rights issue isn't likely to be settled by Vatican decree or million-chick march. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the election season.
Sure, http://www.livejournal.com/users/goblinshark
Posted by: Chris | 2004.04.26 at 13:19
The livejournal link you added in your article didnt work on my computer.
Posted by: Megan | 2004.04.26 at 20:02
It worked when I checked it. Would you be so kind as to let me know what kind of computer and browser you're using, so I can try and trouble shoot? The more details, the better.
Posted by: Lisa | 2004.04.26 at 21:01