Good on #6 for being brave; and everyone should definitely follow the link to read the caption to that photo.

i agree, closethipster. i'm surprised this woman wasn't mocked for not being young and pretty enough. i see her face, and the expressions on those thumbs-up-boys' faces, and i get very, very angry.

Reading the comments under all of the pictures as I went through the album, it was almost difficult to tell if the woman is serious or working on a SNL skit. I couldn't help but to hear Austin Powers in my head when I got to the "Yeah baby" parts.

Nice job on the captions, Ann. I laughed, when I wasn't scowling at the anti-choicers.

And comparing the attractiveness is such bull. Besides, punk chicks are always way more attractive in my book.

I looked at all the pictures in the album and I found it interesting that she points out that about 75% of the crowd was under the age of 21.

Speaking as someone who was once pro-life and attended rallies like that because my parents told me what to believe and I never questioned them till I moved out of their home: I don't thnk that means much at all. It certainly doesn't mean that they'll stay pro-life.

Has anyone looked at the rest of the pictures? This was one of my favorite captions:

"An on-fire rabbi who was refreshingly politically incorrect in his impassioned plea that we fight the pillars of corruption in our culture: abortion, homosexuality, and pornography."

So, in other words, screw women, fags, dykes, and porn stars. Nice message.

The woman who wrote the captions for those photos lost all her sympathetic credibility when she praised a bigoted, homophobic speaker for his "refreshing political incorrectness."
It's not "political incorrectness" to bash a group of people-it's fucking hate speech.
Any righteousness that might have been inherent in her belief that every fetus has a right to be born went straight down the toilet when she turned around and defended someone for preaching that certain people have no right to exist.
Just another pathetic hypocrite...

I can't believe I just looked through that whole album. The shameless manipulation of children and minority groups, WHEN IT SUITS THEIR NEEDS, is a hallmark of anti-choicers. Where they falter (well, aside from how deeply illogical they are) is in slipping up with some hate speech now and again that reveals their true feelings about certain, dehumanized "others"...hence the evil homosexuality comment and the "bilingual" comment. And the shots of children, as if they have any idea what's going on or any control over being there...please, that just makes me feel sorry for everyone involved. I agree with other posters, the youthful demographic is not likely to translate into a powerful adult base with any real longevity, because for most people the ability to think in more nuanced terms, and to question authority, improves with age.

It pisses me off that black people are cow towing to the white majority in this case. It wouldn't have been 50 years ago that this very woman who's prasing them would have approved of the euginecs used against poor black women. Something tells me that if it was proposed to her that poor women period should be sterelized whether they like it or not (either for being poor or for being drug users) she'd approve of that.

But much like the women who try to get in on the patriachy by bashing other women and fighting to take their rights we have that in the black community. Though black men are served by the patriachy as well and condisering that the black community has been mostly matriachial (sp) I can see why they'd want to get in on all the fun of controlling women. *sigh*

"An on-fire rabbi who was refreshingly politically incorrect in his impassioned plea that we fight the pillars of corruption in our culture: abortion, homosexuality, and pornography."

How much do you wanna bet this Rabbi has no clue as to what the anti-abortion crowd really wants to legislate?

I've talked to (frum) Jews who think they are pro-life. They've never really met any conservative Christians until after they've drunk the kool-aid, turned on, tuned in and dropped out of any reality or listening comprehension. They sincerely think that their Christian "friends" only want to ban abortion when it's used as a form of birth control ... they cannot imagine that anyone but a strawman would oppose abortion if the woman's health is at grave risk.

OTOH, I know conservative Christians who cannot fathom that Judaism says that a woman who's pregnancy is jeopardizing her life must have an abortion. To them, sacrificing yourself, in a way considered sinful in Judaism, is a holy act of martyrdom.

It's amazing how little the anti-abortion crowd knows about their own religious traditions and those of others ... and yet they claim that in urging legislation based on their own peculiar senses of morality, they are not stepping on the 1st ammendment?

Did y'all read the caption for #6 though?

The end was:

She was crying and the mother in me wanted to wipe her tears away. Some Pro-Lifers had yelled slogans at her, but as we were talking a beautiful young woman (in the next picture) joined us to engage in some real dialogue.

"Ah poor dear, if we had our way, you wouldn't be sad, 'cause you wouldn't have been born -- and yet we're pro-life, isn't it ironic?"

And yet the mother in her cannot manage to even engage the poor dear in conversation 'cause she's distracted by the hawt young woman who also engages the poor dear in dialog (is it my imagination or does the person who writes this album seem to be a total closet case?). As to the promise by said hawt young woman (and I would agree with the albumist's assessments on physical attractivity here, but I fail to see their relevance, unless you are going to such marches to get dates or something): what water does it hold? Even if there will be an exception in whatever laws the anti-choice crowd is pushing for, how will that exception be implimented? Will they arrest first for having an abortion and then ask questions? Will doctors face problems unless they can justify the abortions they perform? Considering how some anti-choicers feel about who should sacrifice what for which, the hawt young lady's answer wouldn't satisfy me.

Hmmm.

I'm good-looking. Does that mean pro-choicers are right? Dude, I should totally ask her. Maybe I should send a pic just so she can be absolutely sure I know what I'm talking about. We all know that pretty women are the ones with all the answers!!

Colleen, I am so with you on the under-21 thing. As another raised-conservative who's since seen the light (in the past several years -- started to grow up right around the 21 mark, in fact), it's laughable that they think that teens on their side of the fence gives them credibility. I marched in a protest outside a Planned Parenthood once when I was sixteen... and look where I am now.

And as to the bilingual comment... oh, ew. First off, she must be an idiot if she doesn't get that the Mexicans her people so desperately want to keep out of the country -- they're destroying America!!! -- are actually by and large extremely conservative. Second, the tone of her sentence is so demeaning and childish, it almost has to be a joke. "happy to see bilingual"?? Seriously??? Has she passed the fourth grade?? You don't see "bilingual" in that picture, you see Spanish, and "bilingual" is an adjective, not a noun. Ugh. This woman icks me out.

A few comments:

That "bilingual" caption is just amazing. I wasn't aware that you could "see bilingual." As someone above mentioned, any other day of the week the person taking these photos would be out protesting the perceived culture invasion from Mexico.

It is also very interesting that so many of the young women in the pictures definitely appeared to be under 21 and probably still in junior high or high school. Same with many of the young men... there were some 20-somethings, but most of the pics were of early-mid teens. I bet more than half of them will change their views on the issue before the end of the decade. When you're that young, you still tend to follow your parents' beliefs (varies by person, obviously).

Did anyone see the caption on the guy from Stand True ministries? "...it takes all kinds..." Yeah, because anyone who wears all black and has a goatee apparently isn't normal from the photographer's point of view.

And then there was the rabbi who inveighed against homosexuality, etc. Can't have a march about protecting life without attacking those who live theirs differently, can we?

My favorite though was the picture of the little girl in the yellow jacket running by herself. "Thanks mom." The Exploitation Express has arrived on platform 3. All aboard!

At a certain age you do start growing up and seeing the world differently. When I was in 8th grade I wrote the best speech ever against homosexuality. Of course, I was also going to a Catholic school, raise by super conservative Catholic parents and had a religiously fanatic Catholic teacher. Did that skew my point of view? Oh no, not at all (sarcasm).

When you're young you pretty much believe whatever people tell you to believe because you haven't had a chance to learn and make opinions by yourself. But once you do, watch out.

I find it ironic how the person who wrote the captions to the photo about Black pro-lifers doesn't think that forcing women to remain pregnant isn't treating a human being as property. Pro-lifers compare legal abortion to slavery as if making women do to their bodies what other people want them to do isn't exactly what slavery is.

Oh, and I loved this too:

"This was one time I was happy to see bilingual!"

Bilingual what? Someone who can't even construct a complete sentence is going to dictate how those who disagree with him/her should speak? Maybe he/she should master his/her own language first.

There are "many" African-Americans who realize that abortion is "being used against them." Really? Because I count three in that photo.

It's interesting that the pro-life girls are attractive while the guys are pretty much dogs.

This brings back some memories of Operation Miscue coming to Jackson last summer, except that the anti-choice folks there were by and large much older and much less happy-looking. I'm afraid we had all the cute, smiling young things that time around.

Oh, but anyway, they started off against abortion, then ranted against feminism, then ranted against tattoos and piercings, then ranted against homosexuality, then ranted against Islam. They--as in Ms. Roe herself--literally set fire to a rainbow flag and a Qur'an in front of their right-wing host church without said host church's position, so they were promptly kicked out of said right-wing host church for hate speech (good for them!) and had to find a new place to hold their meetings.

I don't want to sit here and harumph harumph and say that there's a huge spectrum of people who oppose abortion and some of them are much scarier than others, but there are. Personally, I love nuns--never met a nun I didn't like--and I get along just fine with the local Catholic bishop. I can't abide their theology, and I could not be Catholic myself, but they're aware of the human cost of their position, and Catholic Charities does a lot to place kids for adoption, fund domestic violence shelters, etc. In other words, they recognize that "pro-life" has some pro-death elements to it and they work to compensate for that.

But then there's the local bearded nut who waves around bloody fetus posters and shouts obscenities at women as they pass by. Once accosted me--a total stranger--in line at the post office and ranted against feminism for 5 minutes without even mentioning abortion (I was younger/pre-activist then and too stunned and creeped out to turn around, look him in the eyes, and tell him to go fuck himself).

Besides the hatemongers, raving lunatics, and the otherwise compassionate and sane religious types, there's a huge number of what I call vacation warriors, folks like the young people in those photos, most of whom probably participated in the pro-life event because their friends were doing it or they thought it might get them laid. And I'm not just being a meanie about point #2--if I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say they'd lost their virginity as the result of an abstinence-related event...okay, I'd have about 35 cents, but that's still a lot, considering.

Cheers,

TH

One of my kids (my name for my friends still in high school :) goes to a Catholic high school an hour north of DC. She isn't Catholic, but it going there because of the AP classes they offer that aren't offered at the public high school. She was telling me that the teachers offered extra credit to those who signed up to go down and march in the Walk for Life. Those who stayed behind got an all day presentation on the evils of abortion. :P

I have gone to Catholic schools for over twelve years, and I would just like to mention that as sad as it is that so many of the young people in these pictures adopt the views of their parents, that is not always the case. I find it a little condescending that it is assumed that no one who is a teenager can have their own opinion. I was raised Catholic but have not been Catholic myself since the seventh grade. In spite of being surrounded by conservative Catholic teachers, I openly shared my opinions about Bush in both presidential elections. I was mocked by a certain teacher for my political views, but that didn't make me change them.

I was one of the only ones in my class who knew about the Roe V. Wade anniversary until they commented about the culture of death in our morning announcements.

I find the ignorance of many teenagers frustrating, as well as their willingness to adopt the views of the majority, but I would hate for some of their views to be discredited when they genuinely care and have done extensive research.

FEMily,

Pro-lifers compare legal abortion to slavery as if making women do to their bodies what other people want them to do isn't exactly what slavery is.

Exactly right. In moral terms, the pro-life position is the same as the pro-slavery position. Period, full stop.

I find the ignorance of many teenagers frustrating, as well as their willingness to adopt the views of the majority, but I would hate for some of their views to be discredited when they genuinely care and have done extensive research.

Believe it or not i was one of those teenagers. When I was a sophomore in high school I pestered my parents to let me go to the March for Life with a group from school. My mom is pro choice but she gave it and let me go.

Now I'm as staunchly pro choice as they come, I just came to that realization differently than many others on this blog may have

Did this make anybody else snort?

... she explained to me that her mother, who already had a few children, had had a dangerous pregnancy and had to have an abortion to save her own life. She went on to have five more, including this lady, who was the youngest.

Wow. Five more abortions, and they all lived. It's amazing what they're doing with science these days.

Colleen, TLF, age does matter. The immense liberalization in Americans' attitudes toward gay rights in the last 10 years has been partly driven by the liberal views of under-30 people. That no such liberalization is occurring on abortion should be a critical concern.

A critical concern, or maybe a delightful opportunity for evangelism. If these folks are not across-the-board social conservatives, then we're probably talking about an uncommitted group of misinformed youth. If we do our jobs right, there's no reason why the under-30 folks should not be as pro-choice as they are pro-gay.

Cheers,

TH

Alon, we're not saying age doesn't matter. And true, it is troubling that the most highly-sought-after demographic is being misinformed. But I think that on this issue, in particular, a lot of young people tend to change their views as they grow older. Abortion is something that doesn't tend to take on a lot of relevance when you're a teen -- not the way that even, say, homosexuality does. As a teen, you're definitely thinking about your sexual orientation. But you aren't, most of the time, seriously engaging and grappling with the issues that come up in considering an abortion.

A lot of these kids are probably holding off on sex maybe a year or two more than their peers, and so they don't see abortion as relevant. I can PROMISE you, from experience, that the first time you have sex and get a late period, you will MOST DEFINITELY see abortion in a completely different light.

Sometimes I laugh at the fact that I was pro-life at 14 for many of the same reasons I became pro-choice at 15.

TLF, the young people I'm referring to are in the 18-29 age group, not in the 16-18 group. They're already having sex. And the likeliest explanation for their views isn't that they're too young, but that they were born when abortion was legal.

Movement politics is all about change. It's easy to get 24-year-olds excited about giving Guantanamo detainees the right to fair trial or gays the right to marry. It's far harder to get them excited about keeping abortion safe and legal, which it has been for their entire lives.

I'm trying to corroborate this with Canadian data, but I can't find age-stratified polls. In Canada abortion was only legalized in 1989, so if I'm right about the explanation, then young Canadians should be more pro-choice than older Canadians, just like the most pro-choice age demographic in the US is the 30-49 bracket.

Alon, interesting theory. You may be right -- I'll have to think about that one. But just to be clear -- Courtney and I were referring to the VERY young people there, the ones in junior high/high school/college. Those are pretty formative years and I think it's safe to say there's a very good chance they'll change their minds when they're a little bit older.

Love the post. I became obsessed with some images from yesterday as well. I think the real problem with these images is that they guide the public debate to a place that gives the power to the anti-choice people. They communicate through such extreme images and messages...the media prints the photos and instead of being angered and shocked, people seem to take those images as a sign that the anti-choice movement is a powerful and correct one.

Complete bullshit.

"TLF, the young people I'm referring to are in the 18-29 age group, not in the 16-18 group. They're already having sex. And the likeliest explanation for their views isn't that they're too young, but that they were born when abortion was legal."

...and/or that they don't have all the children they want yet. From what I've heard, most abortions in America are done for women who already have children. My guess is that "don't have an abortion, having a baby isn't as bad as you think!" may be more convincing to a teenager who never had one than to a 40-year-old who has 3 children.

Alon, as I recall, abortion was legalized in Canada in 1988 and confirmed by a Supreme Court Ruling in 1989. However, I think you may be right with your theory. The few people with an inclination towards criminalizing abortion in Canada, in my experience, are older Conservative men. The majority of people are for legal abortion, at the very least when it threatens the life of the mother. For all the regressive policies Harper's Conservative government has been pushing, criminalizing abortion hasn't even been touched on.

And when it comes to young people, the fully anti-choice high school/university student is hard to find. In fact, the Carleton University Student Association recently passed a motion denying funding to anti-choice groups on the grounds that they discriminate against women. The main reason the decision was so controversial had almost nothing to do with the actual politics of anti-choice groups; rather, with the fact that the decision would be infringing on rights to freedom of expression.

Re: #4--Umm, isn't that comment a little simplistic? Sure, mock these guys for looking like a coupla lame guys who probably haven't thought through their position on abortion very thoroughly (if at all). The fact that they are joking around at a pro-life rally suggests that they are complete jackasses, and I certainly don't want them making decisions about my body. But don't mock them just because they are men. In one fell swoop you have dismissed every husband, partner, and boyfriend who agonized with the woman over what to do about an unplanned pregnancy. Ultimately, yeah, it's up to the woman, but that's not to say that in a good number of instances these decisions aren't made in partnership.

Well, in fairness flavia, I think Ann's point wasn't that men never agonize over it -- but these guys never will. They've demonstrated their indifference to these very difficult issues by going to this pro-life rally. If they get a girl pregnant, they certainly aren't going to be agonizing over whether to abort. And they'll never face the threat of their own bodies being possessed by an unwelcome fetus.

Men who do empathize are good people and should be commended for thinking beyond their own experiential worlds. These men clearly do not fit that category.

I think the pro-life stance of the young demographic has less to do with Roe or inexperience or lack of childrearing and everything to do with modern sex ed and the ready availability of birth control. When BC is over 99% effective (Pill + condom), it's really hard to look at 1.5 million women per year and feel sorry for them. According to Guttmacher, 70% of those women weren't using birth control when they became pregnant. If you consider that many women who seek abortions already have kids, then you're heaping on two more problems:
1. these aren't silly teenagers who don't know better; and
2. heard of a vascetomy or tubal ligation?

If you want the young demographic, you have to explain why abortion is both necesssary and not evil when a million women a year abort and haven't used a condom.

That takes more than slogans, posters, or rhetoric. That is a really tough explanation. Can be done, certainly, but it's a tough one and it involves acknowledging huge failures - i.e. a million women a year who abort because they didn't use birth control.

oenophile, also it's important to be noted -- there's something of a socio-economic class bias in assuming that birth control is simple to get. It's simple for me to get quality health care and important drugs because I have always always been a white upper-class woman. All health care is easy for me. It always has been. It's easy for me to sit here and say, well just get the pill. It's a 25-dollar copay four times a year.

But for many women, it isn't. The pill is expensive without insurance -- about 50 bucks a month or more. Doctor's visits are expensive without insurance, and the pill requires a prescription. Surgeries are even more expensive. Not all of these women are in relationships with men who will use condoms -- they may see their options as: 1) risk another pregnancy or 2) raise your children alone, with zero financial support. Feminists I think by and large tend to be in favor of increasing health care availability to people with less financial means. So this issue is not a failing of feminism -- the key is showing people why it isn't.

And I apologize if I've just said exactly what you were saying, differently :)

Law Fairy,

Please don't apologize! :) You're hitting on the parts that I left out.

Obviously, perception doesn't have to correlate with reality; if white, upper-middle class women can get the Pill, they don't intuitively understand why it's difficult for other women, and they have less sympathy for the pro-choice side.

As for condoms... I can't have much sympathy there. If you are serious about not getting pregnant, you'll have the man use a condom. It's only an option for him to not use one if you allow it to be so. No condom, no sex, and I'm guessing that most men will put the condom on without a second thought.

I once knew a girl who really really never wants kids. She used the Pill, made the guy use a condom, used a spermicide gel, and made him pull out. She's serious about not getting pregnant.

American society isn't serious about women not getting pregnant. If 60% of women who abort already have kids, why isn't a tubal a normal part of the C-section on your last kid? Why are all other drugs $10 and the Pill, even when taken for cramps or abdominal pain, is $30? Why don't doctors talk to men in their mid-30s about vascetomies?

There is a chicken-egg thing going on with abortion: if you can readily abort, doctors don't want to perform surgery for permanent BC.

As for condoms... I can't have much sympathy there. If you are serious about not getting pregnant, you'll have the man use a condom. It's only an option for him to not use one if you allow it to be so. No condom, no sex, and I'm guessing that most men will put the condom on without a second thought.

My experience runs counter to this. As someone who's slept with men who are by and large non-neanderthals (meaning, they don't rape or beat or abuse women), it's incredible the shit they will try to pull to get in there without a condom.

"Oh, it slipped off."

"You're on the pill, right?"

"Shoot, my last one broke and the convenience store is five blocks away."

"I get tested every three months. I'm completely healthy."

"We used a condom last time. You know it's no fun for me."

"Oh come on baby, don't be so mean."

And on and on and on. I'm an attractive single childless professional who has her choice of men or no men, and *I* have a hard time getting them to wear one. I don't even want to think about how hard or impossible it would be for a woman with a low-paying job, high liabilities (kids), and low self-esteem who doesn't feel she has the same prospects I do. Men take advantage of these women. All the goddamn time. I guarantee you most of these women ask them to wear condoms. I will bet you good money they've had men threaten to leave them if they insisted on one every time.

I agree with the other things you've noted -- although a tubal ligation is a pretty dangerous surgery. I'm not sure about recommending it as a matter of course. But, certainly, it's ridiculous that the Pill is so much more expensive than other surgeries, and we need a cultrual climate in which men don't feel their "manhood" is dependent upon their ability to impregnate a woman.

Well, I've had men leave me when I refuse to sleep with them, so I (sort of?) understand. By the same token, men get away with it because women let them get away with it.

"Oh, it slipped off.
Response: "Condoms are made in all sizes. Get a smaller one."

"...the convenience store is five blocks away."
"Ah, the first man in history to not walk five blocks for sex."

"I get tested every three months. I'm completely healthy."
"Your exes are mad sketch."

"We used a condom last time. You know it's no fun for me."
"STDs/pregnancy/childbirth isn't fun for me, and 17% of your pre-tax salary as child support won't be fun for you."
OR
"Well, if sex isn't fun for you, then let's not do it."

Oh come on baby, don't be so mean.
"I'm not being mean; you're just an idiot who missed seventh, ninth, tenth, elventh, and twelfth grade sex ed."

The reason that you - or anyone else - has trouble getting a guy to wear a condom is because they think it's optional. Not to sound harsh, but if a woman allows a guy to not wear a condom, then she's putting sex with that particular man at that particular time as a higher priority than not getting pregnant.

If you're having a C-section (which a lot of American women do), a tubal isn't an additional surgery - the woman is already under anaesthesia.

I'm an attractive single childless professional who has her choice of men or no men, and *I* have a hard time getting them to wear one.

I've always known California is a backwater (well, not always - only since I started living in New York...).

If you are serious about not getting pregnant, you'll have the man use a condom. It's only an option for him to not use one if you allow it to be so.

And if a country is serious about having low levels of unwanted pregnancy, it'll make sure its sex education isn't controlled by puritans.

I've only ever had one man cavil at wearing a condom, and I made it pretty damn clear that I didn't care what he had done with his last girlfriend, with me he was using a condom.

But I'm in a pretty privileged position. I've had excellent sex ed starting from toddler-hood and thus I have an excellent understanding of the risks associated with not using a condom. I don't depend on a man for my sense of self, my sense of self-worth, or a roof over my head and physical safety. I'm articulate and self-assured, and not very embarrassed by talking about sex. I've also had a condom break a couple of times.

And I'm not the world. I can see why plenty of women wouldn't feel as confident as I do about insisting on condoms.

EG, exactly. That's my main point. For me, if I let a man get away with it, I agree that I have no one to blame but myself. But I'm awfully privileged. I'm not ready to expect every woman to act as though she has the same options I do.

Oh -- and Alon. These men were, variously, in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. The creeps come from all corners ;)

I'm not disagreeing that some women may not feel as confident in insisting upon a condom, but let's be real. If you can't fight for condom use - which helps to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancy, i.e. bodily integrity - what are you willing to fight for?

RE: creeps from all corners. The men who dumped me for refusing sex came from NY, Boston, and California. Distinct lack of men from south of the Mason-Dixon line, though.