From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: San Francisco | Womyn
Press release: Pro-Reproductive Rights Actions to Oppose “Walk for Life”
Tuesday Jan 2nd, 2007 1:40 PM
National and local feminist and community activists are convening a broad-based “Forward, Not Back—Reproductive Justice for All!” peaceable counter-protest in response to the third annual “Walk for Life—West Coast” march in San Francisco on January 20, 2007.
Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights

1908 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 * 415-864-1278, 864-0778 [fax], bacorrinfo [at]

News Release
January 2, 2007

FROM: Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights

CONTACT: Toni Mendicino; 415-864-1278 (office),
415-730-2917 (cell)
t_mendicino [at] (e-mail)

FOR RELEASE: Immediately

RE: Pro-Reproductive Rights Actions to Oppose “Walk for Life”

San Francisco. Saturday, January 20, 2007, 10:30 a.m.


National and local feminist and community activists are convening a broad-based “Forward, Not Back—Reproductive Justice for All!” peaceable counter-protest in response to the third annual “Walk for Life—West Coast” march in San Francisco on January 20, 2007. Commemorating the 34th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States, pro-choice advocates—joined by representatives from the immigrant, labor, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender, disability, people of color and youth communities—will line the anti-abortionists’ march route to denounce escalating assaults on reproductive freedom, civil liberties, and women’s health by religious fundamentalists and governmental policies. Other planned activities include: an opening rally featuring health providers, elected officials, and grassroots organizers; performers; a closing speak-out; giant puppets; a public art installation, and more.

Initiated by the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights (BACORR), initial endorsers of the January 20 actions include: the San Francisco Labor Council; the Green Party; Code Pink; Dr. Ahimsa Sumchai, Health Editor, Bay View newspaper; Sister Bernie Galvin, Congregation of Divine Providence; Choice USA; San Francisco NOW; National Radical Women; California State Assemblyman Mark Leno; [Amnesty] Freedom Socialist Party; the Ruckus Society; Women's Choice Clinic; GABNet; United Auto Workers, Local 2103; San Francisco Atheists; the Coalition for a General and Unconditional Amnesty for All Now; the National Network of Abortion Funds, and others.

The “Forward, Not Back – Reproductive Justice for All!” pro-choice events will take place on Saturday, January 20 in San Francisco. The kick-off rally begins at 10:30 a.m. at Pier 5 (on Embarcadero Street near Market Street), followed at 11:30 a.m. by a multi-issue counter-demonstration to the “Walk for Life” route along the Embarcadero waterfront, ending in a community rally at Aquatic Park with more speakers, music and art. BACORR will also host a post-rally gathering at New Valencia Hall at 1908 Mission St (at 15th Street) in San Francisco at 4:00 p.m. For more information, call 415-730-2917, email bacorrinfo [at], or visit

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Sludge
Tuesday Jan 2nd, 2007 2:50 PM
Bring out your "V" Masks
Show them what we think of christain-facists meddling in our lives.
by Pro life lefty
Tuesday Jan 2nd, 2007 8:44 PM
I don't support this. Abortion is a human rights abuse along with capital punishment. Not all the left support abortion. Being pro life as in opposed to war, abortion, capital punishment etc is about justice. Abortion is violence and progressives should oppose it.
by How about forced childbirth?
Tuesday Jan 2nd, 2007 11:11 PM
"Abortion is a human rights abuse".

Spoken like an entitled educated person who has all their rights intact. Check in with some of the women of color, immigrants and women in poverty who already have no right to choose their own self-determination over their own bodies.

Progressive antichoice lefties? Why, they're right up there with "compassionate conservatives" who showed their true colors when the disaster in New Orleans went down.
by suki
Wednesday Jan 3rd, 2007 10:35 AM
...not capable of bearing rights, discerning, pursuing rights, or understand what a "right" is. Civil rights belong to a legal "person". A fetus is not a person. (no matter how hard the Right wants it to be)

Additionally, lest anyone accuse me of trying to diminish the fetus by using the term fetus, let me state that the term fetus is accurate description of what an implanted and growing fertilized egg is. It is not a person.

Any civil rights that are awarded to the progress of pregnancy belong to the person who is capable of bearing those rights. that would be the mother.
by sq
Wednesday Jan 3rd, 2007 11:44 AM
i could be wrong, but i haven't seen a whole lot of publicity for this event, so i wonder how "broad-based" it'll be. Maybe they've done a lot of outreach to progressive churches or unions or something? I'd be interested in hearing how the outreach campaign has gone, and seeing what results.
Wednesday Jan 3rd, 2007 1:49 PM
If "you don't know how the outreach has gone" then why do you think it isn't broad-based?
Admittedly, there's always more to do, but to date the outreach has gone well.
If you'd like to help, we'd be glad to put you to work! Just contact us at bacorrinfo [at]
by Me
Wednesday Jan 3rd, 2007 9:06 PM
Suki, what about late term abortion. Babies can survive from around 23 weeks. Late term abortions have occurred over 30 weeks, well past the point of being a bunch of cells. The ideological fundamentalism of pro abortion proponents blocks them from recognising the science of human development. A late term abortion kills a viable life, a human baby. It is not a bunch of cells. To argue that is to ignore science. Abortion is a regressive, backwards response to a problem. Time to rethink abortion.
by Suki
Wednesday Jan 3rd, 2007 9:23 PM
Most late term abortions involve a fetus which is either dead already or grossly compromised in some fashion-they didnt develop in utero properly-
The word Baby obviously has great emotional significance for you, but let me assure you, when I use the term fetus(which is medically accuarate) it doesnt represent a dismissal of that stage of human development
by WilliamPennington
Sunday Jan 7th, 2007 1:55 PM
The spelling would be "Christian Fascism". Secondly, try "unreasonably authoritarian" instead, since it actually has substance, where as "Fascist" has been used carelessly since WWII as a political slur.

Novelist George Orwell wrote: "... the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless."
by &
Tuesday Jan 9th, 2007 1:18 AM
This whole anti-abortion fascist parade, organized primarily by the Catholic Church, is clearly a smokescreen for fascism with their opposition to the right to free abortion on demand wtih no restrictions as to age, length of pregnancy, marital status or anything else as the excuse. This is clearly an effort to build a fascist movement in the Bay Area. Fascism is the naked force of capitalism, without the democratic facade. We have seen Democrats and Republicans support the "Patriot" Act and the anti-habeas corpus act, all with the excuse of the 9/11 Inside Job, although these fascist acts were clearly prepared long time ago. The face of American fascism will be shown at this anti-abortion, women hating contrived demonstration. These fascists claim to "protect women" from abortion when abortion is one of the safest medical procedures there is while pregnancy by defintion means a women faces death and all kinds of complications to a woman's health can occur due to pregnancy. Keeping women "barefoot and pregnant" is the goal of a warmongering, uneducated, backward society that wants more cannon fodder for endless wars and more breeders of that cannon fodder.
by a pro-reproductive rights woman
Wednesday Jan 10th, 2007 10:25 AM
The term Fascist is used carelessly and without much effect- it's a very specific term, and used gratuitously, loses much of it's power to accurately describe and name(and thus capture/pinpoint/unveil)
The Catholic Church and others that are marching in the anti-choice rally are authoritarian in nature...the believe in referring complex questions back to a hierarchy whether it's religious or state based, as opposed to tasking the individual with decision making...
It's because we need to tell the story of reproductive rights so clearly that we need to use language that uncovers, and doesn't obscure
Ultimately, however, whether you agree with this posting or not, i hope you turn out! That's really what matters
by Pro life
Thursday Jan 11th, 2007 8:22 PM
The nonsense and pro abortion fundamentalism that spews from some on this site is astounding. Do they really believe abortion is about keeping women in the kitchen? Many women are pro life. In fact surveys have shown women are more pro life than men! But that does not stop those who would allow a nine month old to be aborted. That is the reality of abortion on demand. A baby days before birth could be killed in the name of choice. These abortion fundamentalists who deny science are seeking to keep us in the dark ages of ignorance. It is time for enlightened pro life attitudes on the left to come to the fore. Opposing abortion is in line with non violence. It is alarming to see some on this site get rightly upset about the horror in Iraq yet ignore, indeed encourage the taking of life by abortion.
by Prochoice
Friday Jan 12th, 2007 1:10 PM
nice try. Progressive "lefties" (as you like to call them) have already given hard thought to these issues. Don't think you're going to re-label us "fundamentalists" when we know who the real fundies are- they come here every year in January and March, "funded" by the anti-woman, anti-gay, pro-theocracy fundamentalists of the Catholic Archdiocese and the Evangelist Right Wing.

Pro-lifers never have been "pro-life" for everyone, but they have been anti-choice for all except those who espouse their narrow world view. When "pro-lifers" value children living in war and poverty, created by your anti-sex education, anti-contraceptive, anti-woman and anti-sex policies, then you can talk about how "pro-life" you supposedly are.

By the way we're still waiting for you to get on board with rights which are now denied to all, regardless of gender preference. Is that in the works, or should we not hold our collective breath?
by Pro life
Sunday Jan 14th, 2007 8:43 PM
Pro Choice. Once again we see the stereotypes which the pro choice lobby desperately need to keep alive coming out. Why do you try to label pro lifers as anti sex? Come on. Lets be rational! To oppose abortion is to believe that it is wrong to take the life of the unborn. You can hold this view as a woman or man, on the left or right and with or without religion. Do a search on pro life groups and you will find diversity including pro life gays and atheists. Seriously, this is why you guys are not taken seriously. You want to label and box up people into categoroes to suit your ideology. Face it. There are pro life left wing women and homosexuals and even atheists who simply cannot condone the violence of abortion.
by Prochoice
Monday Jan 15th, 2007 6:22 PM
Be rational? Let's get real, you're trying to call people fundalmentalists and we're the irrational ones? Yup, just another irrational female here, because I happen to disagree with you! You're neither left or progressive (dirty words to your allies) if you can't stand in solidarity with women and their struggle for reproductive justice.

Perhaps I misheard your old white male allies calling young prochoice women sluts at the event last year. I must have been misinformed when I imagined I'd seen the signs of your allies carrying signs opposing the rights of LGBTI people. Silly me, I will try to take them more seriously instead of trying to mischaracterize your allies as the sex-hating homophobes they appeared to be. Live and learn!

But we will never condone the violence any of your side does to the reproductive rights of others. You will never force women to bear children against their will without us coming out to oppose you. We view a woman's life as more important than the tissue growing inside of her. We want her provided with sex education, birth control and access to the healthcare choices the she selects, regardless of your wishes to invade her bedroom, or her doctor's offices and interfere with her choice. This includes vaccinations which will prevent her from getting cervical cancer (regardless of age), and not crimimalizing health care providers who get her the healthcare she needs.
by MB
Wednesday Jan 17th, 2007 1:07 PM
I have been reading this dialogue and I think a major point is being left out here in regards to the health and safety, and rights of women. It is my humble opinion that it is exactly abortion and contraceptives that have been the most detrimental tools for the imprisonment and oppression of modern women.
They do not make us equal, as we are chiefly responsible for their use, and they give men free license to do as they please without consequence. They objectify and cheapen women as things for pleasure. There is no equality or diginity in that.

The only way to remain truly healthy and safe and to be a complete equal to men is to abstain from sex completely. Shockingly, it can be done.
by shocked
Thursday Jan 18th, 2007 8:50 AM
How Exactly, can an inanimate/non-material object like the pill, or a procedure empower men to "do whatever they please?" Have you no coping skills? No negotiating skills? Do you not know how to articulate, defend and pursue your rights? Don't you have a brain to think and a mouth to speak? This is the argument that argues that segregation of women is an act of empowerment, ...shocking to read this, in this day and age. And sad too...
by Max
Thursday Jan 18th, 2007 9:06 AM
MB is right. Abortion and contraception are both tools of men. The sexual revolution was fostered by men who want free sex. Men and women do not view sex in the same way.

The important issue is to care for one's self. To nurture one's self. To seek the truth about your (women) being used and disguarded like so many condoms in the trash. People have sex with those they can't stand. Where's the freedom in that? Do we really want to be the human equivalent of a tread mill? I sure don't.

Pro-Choicers call Pro-Lifers "Anti-Choicers" However, with the exception of the radical few, we are not looking to over turn Roe vs. Wade. We are simply looking to educate women. Give them their choice. But tell them the truth about it.

Pro-Lifers call Pro-Choicers "Pro-Abortionists" but this is also untrue. Many pro-choicers would never dream of aborting. They just don't want to lose what they see as freedom.

by A woman
Thursday Jan 18th, 2007 11:30 AM
First you have a woman bemoaning the fact that contraceptives and abortion have turned her into tools of the patriarchy (and assuming an annoying air of utter helplessness...c'mon woman! Buck up for Christ's sakes!)
Then you have another poster ( a man? hard to tell) use the term "your women".
Holy shit.
Listen ladies and a morally complex life is tough.
But.... with all the critical thinking you have to do, the owning up to mis-steps, the inescapable reality that your are as in charge as it's possible to be on this planet (when you assume the full weight of decision making on your shoulders), with all this, ....I wouldn't have it any other way.
I have had abortions, slept with the wrong men, broken some hearts, gotten mine broken, fallen in the gamut, in other words, LIVED, and it's been tough, and enlightening, and heartening and scary, and curiosity provoking and very very real.
When I die, I won't be in any doubt as to whether I lived. How 'bout you?
My life has made, and I will forever demand and pursue my right to lead a morally complex life.
That's what refusing to let decisions about my reproductive systems rest with someone else means.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
by youre so wrong
Friday Jan 19th, 2007 9:50 AM
The sexual revolution was started by women and it was part of a larger movement towards autonomy and self/health care- I was there....
by sane man
Friday Jan 19th, 2007 12:00 PM
What if scientists do discover a "gay" gene? Will you still be in favor of abortion if the parents feel that is a handicap? Or will you favor restrictions on abortion then?
by response
Friday Jan 19th, 2007 4:56 PM
Most reputable scientists have thoroughly disputed the notion that queerness can be located or is a result of a might choose sex selection instead which does happen.
So, if parents choose the abort their female fetus, would I seek to restrict abortion?