Kerry is marching in March for Womens Lives tomorrow

[soleft]

Says he will only appt. judges who will protect womens right to chose.

Bush will be at Camp David.

[Supormom]

1. I thought he was going to be in Iowa tomorrow.

Did he change his plans?
:shrug:

[soleft]

2. This was just reported on Air America News

[Supormom]

4. That's great!

I was disappointed that he was not planning to attend. So glad he changed his mind.

[Sticky]

6. The March is Sunday

is it not?

[Supormom]

9. Yes, I'm sorry. I meant Sunday.

I am leaving tomorrow for DC! Oops
:dunce:

[Sticky]

11. Several of my friends have already left

Canada has a huge number of people going.

[WoodrowFan]

27. damn

you had my hopes up. I have to work Sunday but saw your note and thought "yay I can march after all!!!"


Have a good march all of you. Wish I could be there in person and not just in spirit.

[cally]

3. Companion march in SF also

GREAT!!! Kerry has always supported women's rights and protecting the environment.

For those who don't know, there will be companion marches.


March for Women's Lives ... in your neighborhood.


We know that you'd like to make history with the hundreds of thousands of pro-choice Americans descending on Washington this weekend for the March for Women's Lives. But, traveling to DC just isn't possible for everyone. Luckily, on the same weekend of the Washington DC March, Solidarity Marches will take place in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Read on for more information about these opportunities to March in solidarity, to protect your right to choose!


San Francisco Solidarity March

What: Rally for Women's Lives. A Bay Area pro-choice rally for women's rights in solidarity with the March for Women's Lives in Washington DC, sponsored by San Francisco Youth and Community Partners
When: Saturday, April 24, from noon to 4:00 pm
Where: Dolores Park, San Francisco (Dolores and 19th Street)

The event will feature a rally, speakers, information tables, Food Not Bombs, and special guest performers. For more information or if you are interested in volunteering please email
[e-mail] or visit http://www.teameffinrock.com/rallyforwomen /


Sacramento Solidarity March

What: Join the American Association of University Women California (AAUW-CA) and special guest speakers in a march to the West Steps of the Capitol to rally in support of a woman's right to choose.
When: Sunday, April 25 from 10:00 am to 12 noon
Where: Muster on the K Street Mall between 12th and 13th streets.

The March is part of an AAUW (American Association of University Women, California) convention going on that weekend. If you are not an AAUW member and you will be going to the March, the AAUW asks that you RSVP to [e-mail] . Please include your name, organization, contact information, and number attending in your email.


Los Angeles Solidarity March

What: "Angelenos in Solidarity for Women's Lives", a march in support of women's rights, freedom of choice, funding for family planning, and accessible health care.
When: Sunday, April 25, from 9:00 am to noon.
Where: On the lawn of West L.A.'s Federal Building (11000 Wilshire Blvd., West L.A.)

For more information please contact ASWL at [e-mail] or visit their website at http://www.la4dc.com /.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x204

[proud patriot]

5. Yayyyyyyyy!

:bounce: Good For him , man I wish I could make it to D.C.

but I'm broke and in California :-(

[outinforce]

7. Sigh

Isn't it a shame that, with som many Democrats who have serious concerns and serious reservations concerning this issue, that our candidate for President has apparently chosen to make some of us feel just a little bit unwelcome in our own party?

[truthspeaker]

12. would you prefer he take a wishy-washy stance?

I respect your right to hold your opinion, and I am glad the Democratic party does not take the "our way or the highway" approach to abortion like the GOP. But I prefer Kerry take a stand rather than try to play both sides of the fence.

He is not trying to make you feel unwelcome. He is disagreeing with you. He disagrees with me about Iraq but that doesn't make me feel unwelcome in the Democratic party.

[outinforce]

13. It Would Be Rather Nice

It would be rather nice, I think, if any President or Presidential candidate were able to unite people rather than "pick" a side to the exclusion of others.

Especially on an issue where so many people -- so many Democrats -- hav every deep feelings about the issue, it would be nice to see a Presidential candidate who at least showed some understanding of the fact that there are a great many good, decent Democrats -- lifetime Democrats -- who understand that this issue will not go away until some consensus on the issue is formed.

By "taking a stand", Kerry is, I submit, saying, "I am willing to support only one side of this issue, and that's that".

What you call "wishy-washy", I cal consensus-building.

My other concern, of course, is that it is increasingly the case that not hearing or understanding the "pro-life" side of this issue is hurting Democratic Candidates. I think I am correct when I say that 63% of all 18-24-years olds in the USA consider themselves to be pro-life. As Democrats, we ignore that at our peril.

[charlie]

26. That's an astonishing figure

63% of all American 18-24-year-olds are pro-life. Can you point me to a cite?

[WoodrowFan]

28. Wash Post

a recent article in the Wash post about this Sunday's March claimed 55% of young women were "pro-life." They gave no source for that figure.

[outinforce]

29. I Think that Is Where I saw The figure

I recall it as being quite high. 55% may be more correct -- but that is still a very high figure.

[charlie]

31. Thanks. That's pretty remarkable too

but not like nearly 2/3 of all young adults being pro-life. I'd still like to see where that claim comes from.

[sangh0]

33. It's also very misleading

I consider myself pro-life, but I also support the right to get an abortion

[kiahzero]

30. See, but the thing is

With a pro-choice candidate, you are free to continue to oppose abortion. With a "pro-life" candidate, you are not free to continue to support choice.

[outinforce]

42. Please.

Your post is heavy with disingenuousness.

[sangh0]

43. Please

So are yours

[kiahzero]

46. Care to rebut my point?

It's a valid statement.

[cheezus]

14. you have serious concerns and reservations about equal rights for women?

Kerry isn't marching in favor of abortion. He's marching in favor of equal protection of women. Roe is just one factor.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. women come in a distant third

behind men and waaaaaaaaaaay behind zygotes.

How dare Kerry show up in support of women's concerns!!!

[outinforce]

16. Nice Try

But I ain't falling for that trap, thanks just the same.

I could, I think, just as easily ask you "You mean you favor killing babies before they are even born?"

But that would only be a trick to try to paint you as a person who is -- well, who is evil or malicious.

So please do not attempt to use a similar rhetorical trick in order to enable you to paint me -- wrongly -- as being against equal rights for women. It won't work.

And, frankly, such a question insults the many, many, MANY Democrats who believe it is quite possible to fully support equal rights for women and to have serious concerns about the issue of abortion.

One more thing -- I do understand perfectly well that, because there are fewer people who support an unfettered right to an abortion than ever before, the organizers of Sunday's rally -- NARAL and PPFA primarily -- felt it necessary to expand the issues being marched for. If it had only been pitched as a march for "abortion rights", the organizers understood that they would not have hoped to get a large number (certainly not the 750,000 they are hoping for) to come to DC.

So I understand that the organizers say that they are marching for things other than abortion. But just look at what is being celebrated about the march in this very thread -- the inital post talks about appointing judges -- not about contraception. Post three talks about all of the "pro-choice" folks. Abortion is what this march is about, but the organizers could not bring themselves to be honest about it.

[Tansy_Gold]

20. A zygote, a fertilized egg, a blastocyst

These are not "babies." They are not cute little burbling beings with bright eyes and soft skin and fuzzy heads.

Are they "souls"? Ah, that's a religious question, not a legal one or a scientific one.

The vast majority of abortions take place within the first trimester. Abortion is not the birth control method of choice: it is expensive and not without some risk. It also means you have to get pregnant first, and the whole point of contraception is to avoid becoming pregnant. Abortion, therefore, is the last resort.

In the first trimester, leaving aside all the "soul" and religious attributions, you're really talking about a small bit of tissue. It may have a beating heart, but little else.

Abortions performed in the second, and even more rarely, the third trimester are the pregnancy terminations of extreme circumstances. A severely deformed fetus, or one that threatens the life of the mother beyond reasonable risks. They are the infants conceived by desperately immature barely pubescent twelve-year-olds who don't even know they're pregnant until someone else notices that something's wrong. They're the mysterious weight gain of a menopausal woman who stopped taking oral contraceptives because they were making her hot flashes worse.

Most Democrats -- and democrats -- aren't proponents of abortion as a routine means of family planning. But they recognize that the terrified victim of a gang rape, the young woman diagnosed with cancer at the same time she finds out she's pregnant, the suddenly jobless and poverty-stricken and MARRIED mother of two toddlers who has to choose between milk for her kids or a non-insurance-covered contraceptive. . . . .that's what the right to an abortion is for.

I know I'm not going to convince you. Your mind is made up that from the instant of fertilization it's a cute little "baby." For others it's anything but.

When you deny women, all women, any woman, the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, you force all women to carry all pregnancies, regardless of the circumstances.

Most Democrats -- and democrats -- know that the best way to prevent aboriton is to make contraception (and the education to use it) available to all. I'm sure there are Dems and dems who belong to the abstinence school of "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em." That kind of attitude assumes that the act of conception is entirely voluntary on the part of all parties. It also assumes that every child is wanted and is perfect and is affordable. A family that can provide for the expected "normal" child may be hard put to take care of a child with severe disabilities.

Most of the anti-choice people I know are not the parents of adopted children. Until an anti-choicer puts her/his money where his/her mouth is and takes in an "unwanted" birthed baby, I politely suggest they keep their mouths shut. And yes, I do know some who have adopted, either because they couldn't have their own natural children or because they felt a moral obligatoin to do so. And that's fine.

But I get very upset when someone says they are "pro-life" but have never taken responsibility -- or even offered to do so -- for the results of their stance.

Tansy Gold, going back to lunch

[outinforce]

21. Please.

"I know I'm not going to convince you. Your mind is made up that from the instant of fertilization it's a cute little "baby.""

Really? My mind is made up? I think that from the instant of fertilization it's a cute little baby?

Says you.

I have never said that.

But it does rather seem to me that your mind is pretty much made up on that very issue.

"When you deny women, all women, any woman, the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, you force all women to carry all pregnancies, regardless of the circumstances."

Well, duh. That's a rather profound insight into the obvious. Denying all women the right to terminate and abortion and you deny all women the right to an abortion.

When have I ever said that I want to deny all women the right to an abortion? Show me.

And I guess when all else fails, I can always count on someone to pull out the "well, if you have a problem with women having the power to destroy a much more vulnerable life form then you had by God better be willing to adopt the damn brats yourself!" line.

You talk of "responsibility" for results, and to me, you sound not much different from some friends of mine who say that abortion exists because there are people who don't want to take responsibility for the results of their actions.

I think both of those arguments are down-right silly.

[seabeyond]

41. take it another direction

i dont think it is even about the abortion. for me it is more the interference of government in areas it does not have the right to interfer.

as we get closer and closer to a nazi state, where a 12 year old boy is charged a felony for writing a cuss word, or government can come into home without a search warrant, or a person is no longer able to stand up in a peace rally without being arrested or harrassed. i think we all have to put our pet peeves aside and say though we would like a world where no one aborts, or no one has a gun, or no one smokes, no porn allowed, gay marriages.............are we bringing government into an area it doesnt belong. are we infringing on individual choice because we want an orderly contrived society of zombies.

i do not have to approve, or respect, or endorse abortion to say that government doesnt have a place in this issue.

[cheezus]

23. abortion is sometimes the result

of a woman being allowed to make descisions about her own body. If you take away that right (which men have) women are no longer equal.

[outinforce]

25. Men Have The Right

to kill a human life developing within them?

I had no idea!

What, exactly, is that called when a man does it to himself?

[sangh0]

34. It's called a "vasectomy"

,

[outinforce]

37. Not The Same At All

A vasectomy severs a tube within a man.

Females are just as able to have a similar procedure done to them.

Try again.

[sangh0]

45. Sorry, but they are

An abortion just removes some cells from a woman's womb

Try again. They are all "medical procedures". You are guilty of "begging the question" by assuming that an abortion is a somehow "special" kind of medical procedure.

It's not. Try again

[LandOLincoln]

53. Are you male or female?

If you're a man you have absolutely no rights in the matter of abortion UNLESS you're the father, and unless you are willing to assume responsibility for your child--and even then the mother's rights trump yours.

If you're a woman then damned well don't have an abortion yourself, but you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to attempt to dictate to other women what they may or may not do with their bodies.

[sandnsea]

17. Abortion is a medical issue

If you can't wrap your mind around anything else, accept the fact that sometimes a woman's health requires an abortion. And we have ob/gyn's who don't have to learn how to do them anymore and women are going to die as a result. Do you have a wife? A daughter? A sister? That means THEM. If you can't put a woman's health above some cock 'n bull religious ideology, then I question what your religion is worth.

[outinforce]

19. That's Seldom How it is Presented

Pick One:

a) Abortion should be legal becasue there are sometimes when a woman's health requires that an abortion be performed. Abortion should be limited to those cases where there is an immediate and clearlty recognizable threat to a woman's health or life.

or

b) Abortion should be legal because women must have an absolute right to do with their bodies whatever they want to. Abortion should be unlimited -- with only the woman deciding, especially during the first tri-mester of pregnancy, whether to continue with the pregnancy of whether to kill the developing human life within her.

You seem to suggest that "a" above is the position that will be marched for on Sunday.

I think "b" more accurately reflects the views of NARAL, PPFA, and other groups organizing this march.

Some of us could live more comfortably with "a".

The problem is that the pro-choice side can't seem to make up its mind as to whether abortion is, as you suggest, as matter of health , or whether it really is, as NARAL and PPFA seems to suggest, a question of supporting the power of women to destroy a weaker and more vulnerable life form.

[sandnsea]

22. It's both

But losing b means losing a. Can't you figure that out?

[outinforce]

24. It is Possible

to have "a" and not have "b".

Can't YOU figure that out?

[Tansy_Gold]

32. I may need a logician on this. . . .

But I'll plunge in anyway.

To have "a" is virtually impossible.

To have "a" means not having "b."

There are far more instances where a woman chooses an abortion than because her life or health is in immediate and clearly defined danger. As has been pointed out in numerous cases in other lists and on other boards and probably in other threads here on DU, there have been women who have refused to have abortions even when told the pregnancy will kill them, and they have lived and delivered healthy babies. There are other cases where they have been denied abortions because the "threat" wasn't imminent enough and they have died.

Who is going to decide what is an imminent threat? The doctor? The legislature? A court of pro-life appeals? Who has more right to decide than the woman herself? Whose body is being used by the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby? Does the father have more right than she? Does a judge? Do you?

I'm sorry, but all your defenses come down to your position that this vulnerable little life-form has more rights than the woman who is being forced to nurture it against her will.

And that's the whole point -- a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant and isn't allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is being forced to be pregnant. She is being forced to carry that child at the risk to her own mental and physical health and then deliver it, at even more risk.

I don't think anyone is denying that the fetus is "vulnerable." But so is the woman, and that issue seems to get shoved aside when anyone starts talking about protecting the innocent. Is a woman who is the victim of gang rape any more or less "innocent" than the fertilized egg she wants to get rid of when she finally escapes her attackers?

Cancer cells are innocent life forms too, and we don't seem to have any problem removing them when they threaten our lives. We pull up weeds and spray vicious poisons on the plants we don't want around our yards. We routinely kill all kinds of animals for all kinds of reasons -- to eat, to wear, to eliminate. But the notion of killing -- gasp! -- the four-week-embryo of a HUMAN BEING!!! HORRORS!

And no, I'm not being rudely facetious and insulting. I'm pointing to a fact of life (pun intended) that we kill all kinds of things without much more than a blink of an eye, but when it comes to "babies," there's this huge moral outrage.

Again, if you want only "a", you have to make a clear definition of all those vague threats to the health of the mother. You have to establish a protocol for who will determine -- other than the mother herself, since her decision-making apparatus is obviously not sufficiently developed to make valid decisions on her own -- what constitutes a proper threat to her health. And if the powers that decide prove to be wrong -- meaning, they force her to carry a pregnancy that they think is "safe" but in the end it kills her -- who will pay the price? Or will the deciders be absolved ahead of time?

"A" is virtually unworkable. But if "a" is the only standard, then there is no "b" and women are once again denied the rights of full human beings, the right to decide for themselves what will happen to their bodies.

Tansy Gold, who is as adamant about this as she is about WalMart

[outinforce]

36. I Guess If You Equate Cancer With

I guess if you equate cancer cells with innocent pre-born human life, it does become rather difficult for me to discuss this issue with you.

And I guess if you really want to suggest that all abortions -- every single one of them -- even during the first eight to twelve weeks -- is dones for strictly "health" reasons, then there really is little point in continuing our conversation.

It has always been difficult to stand up to the powerful when then try to hold on to their power to destroy. It has always been difficult to defend the defenseless and the vulnerable against the powerful -- especially when the powerful ones can vote, and the defenseless ones cannot. Because the powerful will use all sorts of reasons to hold onto their power.

Enjoy your March. The weather should be great.

[Tansy_Gold]

47. "Innocent pre-born human life"

You've given it a status it doesn't deserve in a scientific context. You've given it a moral status, and I'm not doing that. I refuse to do it. Because if you give the fetus/zygote/embryo a higher moral value than the life of the woman, you've denigrated all women to nothing but wombs. and if they are only wombs, then they lose all value when they are no longer capable of breeding. They are defined by their fertility. And I reject that.

And I also reject the notion that only "health" reasons are valid ones for a woman to obtain a safe and legal termination to an unwanted pregnancy. If her contraception fails, if she conceives in the midst of a menopausal hormone storm, if she's raped -- none of these have anything to do with what I believe you would classify as "health" threat -- but I believe they are perfectly valid reasons under "b" to grant her wishes.

Yes, her "wishes." She wants an abortion at four, six, eight weeks, fine. Go ahead. I have NO problem with that at all.

When you get into the second and third trimesters, you're only talking about a very, very few cases per year, maybe 2000 in the U.S. And of those 2,000, the overwhelming majority are not "convenience" abortions, but those made for reasons of fetal viability or the severe threat to the mother's life and/or health.

You have placed a certain value on unborn/preborn human life, a value that is in any and all cases higher and more sacrosanct than the life, health, or wishes of the mother who is forced to bear it. I have not placed the same value on it. Further discussion is probably meaningless between us, but I continue to write for the lurkers. I'm just that kind of gal.

Tansy Gold

[sangh0]

52. You are a very patient kind of gal

I know I don't respond so reasonably to posts that begin "So I guess you think....."

I respond along the lines of "If you want to know what I think, just ask; Don't guess!"

[Tansy_Gold]

56. Ah, thank you kindly, sangh0,

but I'm not sure I'm really that patient.

Besides, I have to admit that I was kind of making assumptions about what "outinforce" was thinking, too, although maybe those thoughts were a little more obvious than mine.

But back to the subject --

I think it's grossly unfair to pose a "choice" between a and b with the assumption that they are the only choices, then dismissing one as untenable (b) while setting the only acceptable one (a) in a context that is impossible to administer. The end result, as others have pointed out, is that neither a nor b can be accepted -- ergo, no abortions in any cases and women relegated to the status of walking wombs.

The position of NARAL and PPF is that abortion should be rare but always legal and available, because if there are any restrictions put on it, then women are not free to choose.

The anti-choice movement has very effectively couched their arguments in the sanctimonious and self-righteous language that defines the zygote as "innocent pre-born human life," as though it were some tiny but fully-formed little "baby." (I believe in pre-scientific days, it was referred to as a "homunculus," a micro-baby in the sperm cell, to be implanted in the womb without benefit of egg.) So physicians who perform abortions and the women who get them are "baby-killers," as if there is no other issue on the table (pun intended) than the life of the pre-born. But there are lots of other issues. Not just the woman and her mental and physical health, but her family, her job, her community. She, and she alone, understands the impact her pregnancy and motherhood will have on all of them. She, and she alone, should have the right to decide whether to continue that pregnancy.

The sad thing is that there has been little discussion of the other side of this same coin -- if women's reproductive rights fall into the hands of the courts, what recourse will a woman have if she WANTS to carry her baby to term regardless of the risks, but someone tells her she can't? Won't the notion of the courts having jurisdiction trump her own wishes? If she doesn't have the right to make a decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, how will she be able to exercise the right to continue a wanted one?

Men senselessly murder millions of innocent pre-born human beings every time they ejaculate. It doesn't matter if one of those sperm fertilizes an egg and developes into a "baby"; all the others die. It doesn't matter if he has unprotected intercourse with a fertile woman, wears a condom, masturbates, or what -- every time he ejaculates, millions of tiny potential babies DIE. They DIE. He just wantonly kills them.

Facetious? Well, maybe a little. But it's still true. At least when women masturbate, they don't kill any of those cutesy little eggy-weggies.

Again, I'm not necessarily writing this for "outinforce," because I know that particular person isn't openminded on this subject. Their reaction is from the gut, not from any rational consideration of the causes and effects, the potential results. The only thing that matters there is the innocent pre-born human life.

But I am writng for those who are just reading and not posting and who may have some doubts about where they stand on this issue. I don't deny that it's an emotional one. Where I work we just had a group baby shower for the three women in one department who are all due to have their babies in the next three to six weeks. I personally don't get all gushy about babies -- though I had two of them and raised them into quite decent young adults. But again, I know it's an emotionally fraught subject, thanks to the propaganda of the far-right anti-choice and anti-woman radicals,a nd our entire culture that still presents women as potential mothers. So I try to cut through the emotion and stick to the facts.

Not every mother wants every baby. They should have a choice.

Tansy Gold, staying in Arizona and not marching because she is far too poor to go to DC but will be with all the pro-choice, pro-women marchers in spirit.

[sangh0]

35. It isn't possible to have A without B

because ALL pregnancies have an adverse impact on a woman's health. Every birth reduces a woman's life expectancy. Every birth also represents a risk to the woman's life (giving birth is NOT a risk-free venture), and ONLY THE WOMAN can decide if she wants to take that risk.

[outinforce]

38. Well, Of Course

How stupid of me not to see it that way!

Women never have abortions because they feel pressured to do so, or for any other reason.

It is only "health" that women think about when they consider having an abortion.

How silly of me not to understand this.

The powerful will use just about any reason to hang on to the power they have to destroy the weak, defenseless, and vulnerable.

[sangh0]

49. VERY disingenous

You claimed that we can have A without B, but when I explain why that's impossible, your only response is "Not all women get abortions to protect their health"

That response that does nothing to show how removing A allows those women who DO get abortions to protect their would be protected in the absence of B.

Since the law cannot distinguish between those who get abortions under pressure from those who do it to protect their health, removing B leaves A unprotected.

[LandOLincoln]

55. A woman's decision to have an abortion or not

is simply none of your business. I'm wondering why you're finding it so difficult to grasp that.

[sandnsea]

57. The stigma removes A

It's that simple. There will be no abortion for medical reasons because there will be no doctors who know how to do them. Did you not read about the law that the Michigan house passed? Doctors don't have to perform procedures if they have have a religious or ethical objection. A Catholic doctor could realisitcally let a woman lay there and die. That isn't science. It isn't medicine. It isn't moral. It isn't ethical. But because a Catholic BELIEVES it is, that's the way it is. That is the reality we are currently facing. That's where religious extremism ALWAYS ends up. It isn't about semantics and silly either/or, black/white arguments. It is about women living and dieing. Get out of my uterus!!!

[Shakespeare]

39. No, it's not a shame.

I'm glad, thrilled, relieved, and fired up that Kerry will be there. I'm sorry this conflicts with one of your personal issues, but--no, actually, I'm not sorry--the democratic party officially names a woman's right to choose as part of its party platform. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, the party has made its position known, and I'm delighted that Kerry is unafraid to embrace that boldly.

Link to the platform, in case anyone wants it:

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2000platform.pdf

[outinforce]

40. I AM Sorry

Sorry that you're not sorry.

I happen to be sorry that our party -- which once stood for the notion that we would defend the powerless against the powerful, the defenseless and vulnerable against the more powerful -- has chosen to defend the notion that it is acceptable -- as a matter of pure choice -- for the powerful to destroy the weak, defenseless, vulnerable, and powerless.

[Shakespeare]

44. Well, there are other parties out there more in tune with your beliefs.

We have a difference of opinion on who is powerful and who needs defending. That difference of opinion is fundamental, and won't change for either of us--and likely won't change within the party, either.

[sangh0]

50. Pro-lifers are the powerful ones who want to kill the weak, the defensless

the vulnerable and the powerless. It's their party that's in the White House, both houses of Congress, and SCOTUS, and they want to destroy the rights of weak, defenseless, vulnerable, and powerless, women.

[GOPisEvil]

8. I hope to see our future President there!

I'll have my camera ready! :D

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indigo32]

18. Thats awesome

I soooo wish I could be there.

[Crowdance]

48. YES! A Democrat reinforcing a Democratic message

This is the kind of thing Kerry needs to do to unite this party, and to show the nation that he is 180 degrees in opposition to Bush. He is drawing the dividing line, showing those who support women's rights where to stand. We will stand within him, fully in support of human rights. I'm calling his campaign on Monday to volunteer.

[Borgnine]

51. YES!

I was disheartened when Kerry overtook Dean, but he's growing on me more and more. Nice to see him taking a firm stand on such a divisive issue.

[JHBowden]

54. Naderites think forcing women to have babies is a non-issue.

I'm glad Kerry disagrees. :bounce: