Tuesday, January 24, 2012

As far as the eye can see

A beautiful sight:
Marching for the missing 1/3 of their generation, lost to abortion.

Thanks, St. Blogustine, for showcasing this and other great shots of the throngs! Hundreds of thousands of mostly young people braved the rain and cold to attend the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. this year.

And on the West Coast, some 50,000 brave souls took up the cause of life in what has become one of the centers of the Culture of Death, San Francisco. Check out those amazing photos, here.

Of course, there were all the local marches and gatherings across the nation as well, including the 700 or so who marched in my own city.

The pro-abortion mainstream media almost never report on the marches, or if they do, report only lies… er, inaccuracies. But we know the truth, don't we, friends? We know that the pro-life movement is young and vibrant and peaceful and joyful! Very different from the opposition, who seem to thrive on shocking vulgarity and nastiness. 

Of course, none of these marches can bring back the 50+ million innocent lives taken by abortion since 1973, but they certainly prove that we pro-lifers are here to stay. In fact, the movement keeps growing and growing and growing, looking younger and more radiant every year.

Life will always trump death.

Deo gratias!

68 comments:

  1. Amen!

    I hate that I missed it this year. Definitely planning to go on the 40th anniversary of R v. W, next year.

    Thanks for posting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These young people are the future of this movement. The more they attend marches and make their voices known, the more people will listen. It's not just a bunch of old people who want to save lives...

    DD

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is so heartening to see these folks...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Every time I look at these pictures, I get chills. It's amazing to me to see so many youth and young adults there - they give me so much hope!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Despite the horrid weather, it was a beautiful day.thanks for everyone who prayed; we appreciated it out there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that I'm back and have slept and regained some normalcy from a bus pilgrimage with 130 teenagers, I'd love to! What do you want to know?

      Delete
  6. What you missed the huge media coverage?
    Oh that's right...there was none.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am always so saddened by the lack of media coverage- even acknowledgement! It's a disgrace, in fact.
    Thank you for sharing this beautiful photo - I will definitely pass it on, and the link, to my youth group.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The picture that brought tears to my eyes was the one with the women carrying the regret signs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to avoid, airing. But even the city council there has condemned the Catholic Church officially. They are one of the most hostile cities in the nation to pro-lifers and pro-marriage values. I believe they even officially condemned the March there when it began.

      Here's just some of the city's official anti-Catholic statements:

      http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=19&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=885

      Delete
  10. Read the official anti-Catholic resolution of the SF City Council:

    http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/CityofSanFrancisco-Resolution.pdf

    Just for the record, the homosexual agenda and the abortion agenda are two major pillars of the Culture of Death. San Francisco is very supportive of both those agendas. I hope that makes sense to you, airing. If not, let me know and I can explain more.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The statement "It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country like the Vatican meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city’s established and existing customs and traditions..." (emphasis mine) is not anti-Catholic how, exactly?

      They called Catholics unAmerican with that statement, implying that we're all citizens of the Vatican and not the USA. I find that very anti-Catholic, frankly.

      I agree with this statement: As Circuit Judge Kleinfeld appropriately observed in his initial opinion on the case:
      “The message in the resolution, unlike, say, the message that might be inferred from some symbolic display, is explicit: a Catholic doctrine duly communicated by the part of the Catholic church in charge of clarifying doctrine is 'hateful, defamatory, insulting, callous, and discriminatory, showing insensitivity and ignorance, the Catholic Church is a hateful foreign meddler in San Francisco's affairs, the Catholic Church ought to withdraw its religious directive, and the local archbishop should defy his superior's directive.' This is indeed a message of . . . disapproval. And that is all it takes for it to be unconstitutional."

      Delete
    2. "And if the Church is anti-gay it follows that their residents might be upset by that."

      Whoa, whoa, whoa....we need to be very clear here lest we play into the liberal agenda. The Church is certainly not "anti-gay", as the media would have us believe. No, the Church is anti-SIN. Same-sex attraction is not a sin...disordered use of the sexual faculties IS a sin. BIG DIFFERENCE.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Questions and use of capital letters for emphasis are not proper in logical discourse? (Oh, sorry, that was a question.)

      I disagree. I think that in any discourse, questions are appropriate; in written discourse, emphasis on certain words is also appropriate.

      The resolution spoke specifically to the Catholic Church exercising Her right to free speech on a matter of public policy. The City of SF made it clear in that resolution that it wanted no input from the Catholic Church (or, as they put it, "the Vatican") into the "great city’s established and existing customs and traditions."

      But you ignore the larger point: It is anti-Catholic to tell members of the Catholic Church that they are not American citizens. Do you agree or disagree?

      Delete
    5. airing, I disagree. I find that the phrase is only used by people who have come to a more complete understanding of the full Truth, Goodness, and Beauty of the gift of human sexuality. The propensity for disordered use of ourselves and others (as well as food, drink, etc...) is inherent in all of us...some have heavier crosses than others certainly, but we must bear them still.

      My use of capital letters was for emphasis...as one would emphasize certain words in speech. It was by no means a sign of vitriol or anger, please don't see it as that.

      Delete
    6. Wow, I haven't even read all this, and am running out the door. Will be back, but have to leave this other bit of "Culture of Death" evidence at your feet:

      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/san-francisco-mulls-pregnancy-center-gag-law/

      San Fran is trying to gag and close crisis pregnancy centers! Um, if that is not Culture of Death action, I am not sure what is.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Airing, do you believe that the Catholic Church is "anti-gay"? And where is the vitriol of which you speak that is here on the blog? Also, do you believe that because someone has a particular sexual attraction it cannot be disordered?

      And, does anyone see the irony in this:

      "It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country like the Vatican meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city’s established and existing customs and traditions..."

      It makes me laugh that the city is named after St. Francis!! And yet this (Catholic named) city is shocked that it's Culture of Death customs and traditions are being challenged…. by Catholics! I think it's St. Francis who is insulted by the Culture of Death and the City Board! ha ha!

      Delete
    9. I appreciate being the center of attention on this, kind of like a mouse in the middle of hungry cats!

      Doesn't sound real flattering, ha ha. You are a faithful Catholic, so why does it "feel" (to me) like we are on opposite sides? Why do you feel like a mouse with predatory cats?

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. airing, you may not like the style of this blog, and that is certainly your right. It's not for everyone. I made a point of saying that in my "Please Read First" link up above:

      http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/p/purpose-of-my-blog.html

      Especially read the section called, "The Purpose of My Blog".

      I love our Church in that there are as many approaches to evangelization and teaching as there are evangelists and teachers. Some use the "heart" method, and some the "head" or other ways to reach and present. Everyone needs something different. I applaud every single Catholic who uses a different, more soothing and prayerful approach to reaching wounded souls. Hopefully there is a place for all of us. I believe, from what I understand of the Church, that there is. Some teach, some pray, some warn, some heal, some do some of all of that.

      I am sorry you feel this blog is unloving. Thankfully, there are so many other more worthy Catholic blogs out there, and I am glad that we all can learn and grow and heal from those sites. Personally, I think the best thing anyone can be reading, aside from Scripture, is the writings of the saints (that's a pretty diverse group there, too, with myriad approaches and personalities). I would recommend the writings of the saints to anyone and everyone, in addition to (or instead of) blogs.

      Blessings!

      Delete
    12. PS: You presume a lot when you believe that all "knowledgeable" people know the rules. Most middle-aged and younger Catholics were raised up in ignorance of the faith. Teaching of the Faith has been much, much neglected in the past 40 years or so.

      Also, don't forget, not everyone is "knowledgeable" in the first place. There are many folks who are not in the place that you are.

      Blessings!

      Delete
    13. PPS: Sorry for the multiple comments, airing, but you didn't actually answer my questions? Thanks!

      Delete
  12. Psh CNN, that certainly doesn't look like "hundreds." Maybe they just forgot to type the words "of thousands" afterwards. :P LOVE LOVE LOVE seeing this!

    ReplyDelete
  13. This generation gives me so much hope that the tide is definitely turning against abortion. This photo is amazing. I don't think you would have seen this many young people fighting for life 20 years ago. Praise God!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Leila
    Did some of the responses to this post get erased? I was reading them last night and saw four questions that you posed to pro-choice people to answer, but I don't see them now. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarah, I don't think so. Maybe you are thinking of the last post (Ask them what they mean by "choice") or the Quick Takes?

      Thanks!

      Delete
  15. OMGOSH, can you believe CBS???????

    How do these people have any pretense of integrity????

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/01/washpo-only-abortion-proponents-attended-the-march-for-life/

    Sorry, but this is comical!!!! And infuriating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leila
      I went to this link and saw a you tube video of pro-lifers speaking. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

      Delete
    2. Agree, a slant is one thing ~ holding 30-50 peoples counter-protest in greater weight to that of 300,000 is beyond belief.

      Delete
    3. Sarah, it was the link within the text of the post. Here is the link:

      http://washington.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2012/01/23/activists-hold-annual-march-for-life-on-roe-v-wade-anniversary/

      See how disingenuous that is?

      Delete
    4. I see some people holding up "keep abortion legal" signs but I still don't see the point you are making. Perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks.

      Delete
    5. Sarah, the slideshow purports to be about the pro-life March (even headlined "March for Life"). Instead of showing the March and the marchers, they show pictures of the handful of pro-"choicers" with their signs, and willfully withhold showing the photos of the throngs (literally hundreds of thousands!) of pro-life marchers. stretching as far as the eye can see. It happens every year, this media obfuscation and black out, but this is particularly glaring.

      Do you see?

      Delete
  16. Leila

    Last night I clicked on your link to "shocking vulgarity and nastiness" and got confused thinking that was the current blog post.

    I read the San Francisco resolution and it's clear that the Vatican is referred to as a foreign country--which it is. It doesn't say that American Catholics are not American citizens. Also, it is not a general condemnation of Catholicism, but a specific request to a specific Cardinal to withdraw a directive specifically made to the Catholic organization in San Francisco specifically about not letting same-sex couples adopt children.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Leila

    San Franciso is not trying to "gag and close" crisis pregnancy centers. The resolution is requiring that they be honest in their advertising. That is, they should not imply that they offer abortion services when they don't. The resolution specifically states that "The City respects the right of limited services pregnancy centers to counsel against abortion."

    It's important to be accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sarah, you are right, it is important to be accurate. It is accurate to say that the pro-"choice" side has found a new tactic recently: To go after pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Centers. No CPC ever says that abortion is provided. That is simply untrue. There is lots out there on this subject, and it's in the courts, and not only happening in SF. I will try to get those links for you.

    And Sarah, you read the SF resolution. Do you honestly believe that is not an anti-Catholic statement? Really? I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise. It's not the place of any city to make such a statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Leila. Perhaps it is anti-Catholic in a limited way. I say limited because Catholic doctrine is vast and deep and this is a statement about a very specific issue--that of same-sex parenting. Also, not all Catholics are opposed to same-sex parenting so it's not talking about all Catholics.

      There's another difference here. The resolution is refuting a very specific directive, one the city officials (rightfully, in my opinion) believe is discriminatory against its citizens. If the leader of a religious group (let's say Mormon, for the sake of argument) sent a directive to their adoption center in a Southern city, ordering them not to let Black families adopt children from the their center, and the officials of that city passed an ordinance requesting the Mormon leaders withdraw that instruction---it would not be "anti-Mormom" as much as it would be anti-bigotry.

      Delete
    2. Sarah, do you think it would ever happen that the SF Council would condemn Judaism or Islam in the same way? I can't imagine it.

      It's not talking about all Catholics, you are right. It's only condemning the Catholics who agree actually agree with Catholicism. As for Catholics who don't believe in their own professed faith? The SF Council has no problem with folks like that.

      (PS: The orthodox of every major world religion has understood homosexual acts to be sinful, so this belief is nothing unique to Catholicism. Also, race and sexual habits are not comparable in the least.)

      Delete
    3. Leila

      I believe if Judaism or Islam made the same move to prevent same-sex parenting in San Francisco that the rsponse would be the same.

      Delete
    4. Sarah, you think there would be an official statement condemning the Jews as interlopers from Israel? Really? Or officially condemning the Muslim religion on its sexual teachings? I don't think they have the guts for that. I think Catholics are easy targets. No one would dare touch Muslims, and it's not politically correct to attack Jews in official statements.

      Delete
    5. Leila
      Hard to communicate about this. As I said, I don't see the action taken by the SF council as a condemnation of CAtholocism as a whole--it's a rejection of a specific directive given by a Catholic official. If a representative of Jews made the same directive I'm sure it would be refuted. Saying Jews are "interlopers from Israel" has nothing to do with the scenario we are addressing.

      Delete
    6. Sarah, we will just have to disagree on this one. The statement by the SF council speaks for itself and I guess everyone can take a look at it and decide.

      Delete
  19. Gag rule shot down by judge in Baltimore (yay!)

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-victory-for-baltimore-pregnancy-center-sign-ordinance-deemed-uncon/

    NARAL's new strategy to shutter crisis pregnancy centers:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/naral-reveals-national-strategy-to-shutter-pro-life-pregnancy-centers/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read the articles and it looks like the effort is for CPCs to be forthright about their agenda, not to close them down. I had a friend who went to a CPC and when she asked about referrals for abortion they told her they didn't know of anyone in town who did abortions and they didn't have any information about abortion. These were lies--they were many doctors in town who did abortions. If they had been truthful and said they didn't give referrals because they didn't believe in abortion that would be fine.

      Delete
    2. Sarah, I am involved with at least three CPCs here in town. They are Catholic. They do not lie to anyone. Lying is a sin, and we Catholics take sin very seriously. I cannot speak for the experience your friend had. Can you give me the name of the place?

      Most CPC's would have plenty of information to give a woman about abortion. That's a huge part of what they do.

      Pro-lifers in general give accurate info about not only abortion but the records of the abortionists in town (and all the injuries, deaths, lawsuits, etc.)

      Delete
  20. Once again - they called Catholics unAmerican with that statement, implying that we're all citizens of the Vatican and not the USA. I find that very anti-Catholic, frankly.

    To repeat the words of Judge Klienfeld:

    “The message in the resolution, unlike, say, the message that might be inferred from some symbolic display, is explicit: a Catholic doctrine duly communicated by the part of the Catholic church in charge of clarifying doctrine is 'hateful, defamatory, insulting, callous, and discriminatory, showing insensitivity and ignorance, the Catholic Church is a hateful foreign meddler in San Francisco's affairs, the Catholic Church ought to withdraw its religious directive, and the local archbishop should defy his superior's directive.' This is indeed a message of . . . disapproval. And that is all it takes for it to be unconstitutional."

    Airing, you speak as though it's "either/or" - either we challenge pro-choicers to defend their faulty logic or we speak the truth in love. However, it's both/and. Leila calls out pro-choicers on her blog because that's the purpose and nature of intellectual discourse..

    Naturally, a different approach is taken when speaking with a woman in a crisis pregnancy (or contemplating divorce, or what have you).

    You can shrink from defending the unborn under the guise of being compassionate all you want, but it won't fool God. He wants us to both defend the unborn AND be compassionate, not one at the expense of the other.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AWESOME PIC! I know most of the people in the picture! They represent my alma mater Christendom College. They led the March and my brother held the banner! Check out my post about the March!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just a note to readers: I did not delete all the comments from 'airing the chapel', she herself deleted them. I only say that because the way Blogger words it ("This comment has been removed by the author") is confusing. Some have thought in the past that it was the author of the blog (me!) who is deleting. So, I just wanted to make that clear. I do not censor anyone unless there are vulgarities or threats.

    Airing, you speak as though it's "either/or" - either we challenge pro-choicers to defend their faulty logic or we speak the truth in love. However, it's both/and.

    JoAnna, well said. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  23. From Bishop Olmsted's homily, which seems relevant to this discussion:

    This is not the first attempt in our nation to silence Catholics and other persons of faith. But it is perhaps the most grave. God calls us to respond with truth and love to this national crisis. No one is ever converted by hate, but neither are they converted by inaction.

    The rest of his amazing homily is here:

    http://catholic-kara.blogspot.com/2012/01/bishop-olmsteds-homily-1-22-12.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. As far as I could tell there was no mention of the March up here. So very, very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Those are great pictures. Love the one you used at the top! The media never covers this event, but young people today really don't get their information from MSM. They get it from the internet -- blogs, FB, Twitter, etc. And there, we can tell the truth! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So so true. I think I get about 1/4 of my info from official sources.

      Delete
  26. I wonder if SF has been calling out Planned Parenthood to be upfront and forthright about it's services. I've come across many people who STILL don't believe PP even does abortions in it's clinics, and that they only refer women for abortions a small percent of the time. I went to a Planned Parenthood as a teenager, looking for birth control (without my parents' knowledge/consent, of course). I had NO IDEA they provided abortions when I went...it wasn't until many years later that I realized where I had been. It's laughable to me that SF is calling out CPCs to "be more forthright"...if women actually go there looking for an abortion and are given no information, they can simply walk out the door and google for an abortion clinic. If they walk into a Planned Parenthood seeking options and are pressured into having an abortion, it's too late. You can't bring back a dead baby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Manda, well said. And I wonder if the SF Council cares that Planned Parenthood has been complicit in covering up many a child rape? Strange that that does not bother them, but centers which give financial and medical and emotional support to a pregnant woman in crisis (both before and after the child is born) is very troubling to them.

      I, too, went to PP as a teen seeking birth control… They made me a Code Mindy, which meant they would keep all of it secret from my parents (because of course, PP loved me more than my own family!). They then gave me Pills, i.e. steroids that carry many, many risks, while I was not even done growing as far as they knew. What a great organization! Barf!

      Delete
    2. My mom used to take us to PP for our annual exams, and my sister there for BCP. I was on BCP for my ovary issues. I had NO idea until I was 19 what went on at PP. I mean, I knew about abortion, but I didn't "get" it. PP is disgusting and predatory, and of COURSE they would not be forced to be more forthcoming by the liberals.

      I hate how PP is touted as the best place for teens to go for "help". I hope my kids never set foot in one of those places. Ugh.

      Delete
  27. Now that I'm back and have slept and regained some normalcy from a bus pilgrimage with 130 teenagers, I'd love to! What do you want to know?

    Maggie, I would love to hear your overall impressions, and what the mood was (were these "unloving, hateful, vitriolic" pro-lifers, as some believe), what the chatter in the crowd was, any interaction with the pro-abort folks (if you even saw them), etc. I'll take whatever you can tell us! Do you think the kids were more dedicated to life after the march? How did they feel about their participation? It's such a young, hopeful crowd! Good kids, good people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sent you an email; apparently my comment is too long for Blogger :-/

      Delete
  28. Here are Maggie's impressions of the March, in segments….

    Hi Leila,
    Tried to leave a comment but it was too long for Blogger's character limit... so here you go:

    Much like last year's March (which was my first one), the mood was an interesting mix of joy and seriousness. There is no denying that the throngs of pro-lifers are overwhelmingly young- mostly high school and college students - and that they are excited, joyful, and optimistic. Even the horrible weather (rain and fog, temperatures in the high 20s/low 30s, ridiculous amounts of muddy slush on the Mall) couldn't contain their obvious enthusiasm. It was serious, though, as well, because there was a sense of the importance and urgency of this cause.

    Toward the beginning of our March (around the curve of Pennsylvania to Constitution) there was a group with a very large projector showing graphic footage of abortion procedures (ie the aftermath, with dead baby parts, etc). This was particularly upsetting for the students who had never seen that before, and we (the chaperones) tried to explain to our kids that our approach isn't like that, but what they were showing was true, even if it was very disturbing. But as we climbed Constitution Ave up Capitol Hill the mood soon became joyful again; many groups (including ours!) sang hymns, led cheers, prayed the Rosary out loud, etc. Almost at the top, near the Russell Building (senators' offices) the group of youth from the Archdiocese of Chicago was there again on the steps, with their yellow balloons, giant Vatican flags, and excited presence of singing and cheering. Many religious orders also were "camped out" at the top of the hill, in addition to those who were marching in the crowd itself.

    Our group (youth of the Diocese of Green Bay!) was in the second quarter of the March crowd, so as we climbed the top of the hill, looking behind us we could see nothing but other pro-life people extending farther than the horizon. We did not see any pro-"choice" people at all; I know there were some at the top near the Supreme Court but they must have been so few they were invisible among all the pro-lifers (except, of course, to the MSM). During our march we met many other groups, like the Rabbis for Life (Hassidic Jews with their traditional garb and beards, bearing signs in Hebrew), many, many, many other Catholics, Protestant groups, etc.

    One of the things I love about the March is that it has such a "Catholic reunion!" feel to it. Last year during the rally on the Mall, I ran into five friends I hadn't seen since college, including one friend who's now a religious brother. This year, in addition to the people in my group, I talked/texted with about a dozen friends from all over the country who were also scattered throughout the March, though I didn't manage to see them in person.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Maggie's thoughts, continued:

    Another thing that's encouraging for me as a youth minister is the both the 1) ecumenical presence of the March and 2) its overwhelmingly Catholic presence.

    It's true we saw groups from all different Christian denominations, plus Jews, and atheists for life, which attests to the underlying reality: life is a universal cause, not limited to any one religion or ethnicity, but part of natural law. At the same time, while we saw many groups who weren't Catholic, the vast majority of those that were very large and well-organized were. The Knights of Columbus are a veritable army of sign-distributors (the green "Defend Life" signs all come from the Knights, given to the 30,000 people leaving the Rally and Mass for Life at the Verizon Center and DC Armory), and Catholic universities like Franciscan, Belmont Abbey, and Christendom were very well-represented (Franciscan brought over 400 students... which is like 20% of its student body, enough that classes were actually cancelled that day, and Christendom College students held the big sign at the front in their red ponchos).

    And of course, as Cardinal DeNiro said in his homily at the Youth Rally (at the DC Armory), we received Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, and then strengthened by him, we were sent to literally bring his love into the streets. Give that there were 30,000 youth at the two Mass/Youth Rallies and 18,000 adults at the Basilica (with Cardinal-designate Dolan, celebrating 7:30 am Mass), at least 48,000 people marching were little tabernacles, bringing Jesus into the world.

    There were religious sisters/brothers, seminarians, and priests everywhere along the route, well-represented lay apostelates, parish communities, youth groups, and so on. One of the couples near my group were connected with the Fellowship of Catholic University Students. At several points along the route people were giving out information, and in 9/10 cases it was Catholic information- holy cards, Divine Mercy Chaplet guides, St. Michael medals, etc. Saw several groups processing with statues of Our Lady. One group carried a giant rosary with beads the size of ball pit balls.

    So my impressions of the March? Horrible weather, but high spirits! Everyone we met or talked to was very nice. Our group of diocesan youth has grown in size every year, and I see no reason that trend will not continue.

    I mentioned to several students how the MSM doesn't cover the March, and used the popular and often-quoted blogspohere phrase, "prolifers must be ninjas, because no one ever seems to notice them" Several students said they want to make tshirts next year that have a ninja holding a baby with "ninjas for life" on the front. We'll see!

    As for dedication, I would say it was encouraging, to be sure. The morning after the March our group prayed outside planned parenthood, and a handful of (usually very shy) girls in our group volunteered to try out sidewalk counseling (kindly handing pro-life literature to those coming in our leaving). Earlier in our pilgrimage we had an attorney from the Alliance Defense Fund speak to the students about their rights to be prolife in public schools, and found pro-life clubs.

    Every teen I talked to after the March wants to come back next year, and most said something like, "I need to tell my friend ___ to come! He/she would love it!" The movement is young, it is alive, it is growing, it is joyful.

    Can't wait to go back next year! St. Gianna pray for us!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I noticed that on Shameless Popery, Joe said that Newsweek claimed that all the pro-life young women are at home, which is funny, since I've been to the Masses at both the Verizon Center and the DC Armory, and there are more young women there than any other age group. We also make up a huge number of marchers each year, and for the number of pro-choice folks who show up at the march, I had to point out all two and a half of their signs this year to friends who had never been. They were surprised at the scarcity (and advanced age) of the counter-protesters.

    Also, as a young woman, I am outraged that Newsweek or any other entity would dare to make presumptions about me, especially since it's the pro-choice rhetoric which covers up the tragic harm abortion does to women, most of whom are my age (give or take a few years). I think the MSM is useful, but that's when they're on the right side of what's going on. As far as life is concerned, they're still woefully in the dark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Christina. The vast number of prolifers are young women. It's beyond laughable that Newsweek "missed" them. Even if they didn't do any homework, Lila Rose of LiveAction is typical of the movement (she's young, passionate, articulate, well-educated, etc) and has been on most of the major networks recently.

      Delete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!