Hundreds Show Up for Impromptu Abortion Rights Rally Tuesday
Rally for Reproductive Freedom on May 3, 2022 (Photo by Marian Shapiro)
Rally for Reproductive Freedom on May 3, 2022 (Photo by Marian Shapiro)
Rally for Reproductive Freedom on May 3, 2022 (Photo by Marian Shapiro)
Rally for Reproductive Freedom on May 3, 2022 (Photo by Marian Shapiro)
Update and photos by Marian Shapiro
May 4, 2022
As a response to the Leaked Supreme Court statement which indicated Roe v Wade would be overturned, a rally was organized by Planned Parenthood and the Women’s March SB on Tuesday, May 3. It got a huge turnout of outraged women and men from teens to 90-year-olds, filling up De la Guerra Plaza at 5 pm, including many elected officials and candidates.
My photos from the Pro-Choice rally are here: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzNfBt (with some in the above slideshow)
(left to right) Former State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Marian Shapiro, and Jenna Tosh of Planned Parenthood
Source: Women's March Santa Barbara
May 3, 2022
The Supreme Court of the United States could overturn Roe v. Wade. The opinion leaked yesterday is a DRAFT opinion, not the final opinion, and abortion remains legal (at this point).
However, this draft opinion will be DEVASTATING for abortion rights for more than 36 million people across our country.
We are rallying at De La Guerra Plaza in Santa Barbara at 5:00pm in support of our rights! Excerpt below from MoveOn.org:
Last night, we learned right-wing justices on the Supreme Court intend to overturn Roe v. Wade. This decision would allow states to ban abortion across the country, leading to even further assaults on reproductive health.Today, we show up—to say abortion care is health care and #BansOffOurBodies!
These protests are coming together fast. All across the country, folks are going to gather at federal courthouses and other federal buildings, town halls, town squares, and community outdoor spaces. Because of the short turnaround time, we don't have details for each local event, and most won't have formal hosts or programs. Instead, it's just a natural outpouring of energy as we show up to resist the attacks from the right-wing justices and Republican politicians and demonstrate that we will continue to fight to ensure abortion is safe, legal, and accessible for all who seek it.
The vast majority of Americans believe abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible. We are showing up before the right-wing justices on the Supreme Court finalize a decision. We are showing up to demand elected officials—in Congress and in state houses—take every measure to codify abortion rights.
And we are showing up so that people who seek and need abortions and abortion providers know they are not alone—we are in this together.
Over the upcoming days, weeks, and months, we'll continue to show up. We'll pressure lawmakers and the Supreme Court, we'll support abortion funds and abortion providers. We'll share information on how people can access reproductive care. We'll turn out in bigger numbers and larger rallies as needed.
Comments Penalty Box
No Comments deleted due to down vote
10 Comments deleted by Administrator
209 Comments
-
4
-
1
-
May 06, 2022 06:17 PMThe hypocrisy with this issue is astounding. "Pro-life" but against all efforts to support the lives of children after they're born by giving them access to healthcare, food and shelter. "Pro freedom" but the government can tell women what to do with their bodies and permanently dictate the direction of their lives. "Following the founding fathers" when the last thing they wanted was Christian doctrine dictating public policy. Shame.
-
2
-
1
-
May 07, 2022 06:35 PMAnd conservatives used to be pro-small government. Now it's gov't in the dr. office, gov't in bedroom, gov't in the home about raising children.
-
2
-
2
-
May 06, 2022 08:16 AMBoth sides have a compelling argument… a middle ground must be found. It shouldn’t (and cant) be all or nothing…
-
3
-
2
-
May 06, 2022 11:32 AM@11am, I disagree. A physician and surgeon upholds a code of ethics and must abide by medical guidelines. The mother is their patient and they can perform abortions up until a certain point to where it is safe for the mother. Waiting too long, it's no longer safe and doctors will not do it. Just as surgeons will refuse other types of surgeries if the risk is too great. If a surgeon does perform a late term abortion, it should only be if the mother is at risk. If a surgeon does this risky surgery, or any risky surgery, "just because" then they need to have their medical compentency evaluated.
-
2
-
3
-
May 06, 2022 11:00 AMThe middle ground acknowledges that sometime between conception and birth, it isn't just about the owner of the uterus and the physician, but the viable baby inside the uterus as well.
-
4
-
2
-
May 06, 2022 09:50 AMThe middle ground is between the owner of the uterus and their physician.
-
1
-
-
May 06, 2022 12:08 AMMs. Marian, Thanks so much for your post!!
I worked at PP in the mid-90's. I much appreciate all your posts here to keep me updated.
-
1
-
1
-
May 06, 2022 12:02 AMI'm quoting more than I should, yet wish I could post more. Amy Coney Barrett made her own argument for recusing herself from this issue; from moral issues on the basis of her religious beliefs (it's worth reading the article):
https://news.yahoo.com/justice-amy-coney-barretts-own-144506136.html
To follow her own words in a 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself from deciding this case (and all other abortion cases) if she has any integrity at all.
In "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases," published in the Marquette Law Review, Barrett (then a law clerk to a federal court of appeals judge) and her co-author address the dilemma that faces devout Catholic judges in capital cases. She writes that such judges are "obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty," but they are also "obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters." They are therefore "morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty."
What's a Catholic judge to do, then? According to Barrett's article, the judge must recuse herself. She can neither enforce the death penalty and violate her religious conscience, nor fail to enforce it and violate her oath of office.
And even in a case in which a judge has discretion whether or not to sentence a convicted criminal to death, he cannot resolve to keep an open mind and then claim to have done nothing wrong if he decides not to impose the death penalty. Because, Barrett writes, "A judge who suspends his moral judgment during sentencing sets his conscience aside" and "cuts himself loose from his moral moorings." That unloosing is itself a sin, she concludes - analogous to "looking lustfully at a woman" and thus committing adultery "in his thoughts."
Barrett's bottom line is that an "observant Catholic judge" may not "formally cooperate in bringing about the defendant's execution." And for that reason, "if one cannot in conscience affirm a death sentence the proper response would be to recuse oneself." To do otherwise is to "betray a public trust" by manipulating the law "in order to save lives."
What does all this have to do with abortion? Barrett tells us in the same article that in the context of abortion the case for a Catholic judge's recusal is even stronger. Unlike the death penalty, the Catholic church's "prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia are absolute." And also unlike the death penalty, "abortion and euthanasia take away innocent life." Abortion, she says, "is always immoral."
-
1
-
2
-
May 06, 2022 05:04 PMIf what you outlined earlier is the bar for recusal, we'll need to rehash numerous cases already decided and probably won't have a full panel of judges on any case going forward. What is often forgotten when making comments like that, is that it doesn't just apply for this particular issue where it works in a particular positions favor, but would need to be applied consistently across the board. Which is why I roll my eyes when people think solution to SCOTUS issues is packing the court, like they think their preferred politicians are going to forever be in control and the other party won't ever be able to take advantage of the change in the future. Imagine the uproar if Trump pushed to pack the supremum court, or started the Disinformation Governance Board, or required vaccinations in order to take part in society, or had a son with shady business dealings in a country we're now sending billions of dollars and weapons to.
-
2
-
1
-
May 06, 2022 09:59 AMYes, they can do both vote to codify Roe v Wade and require Amy recuse herself as
a means of practice and preservation of the Supreme Court. Otherwise the Supreme
Court will loose all credibility.
-
3
-
-
May 06, 2022 09:44 AMVOR, that is the most reasonable comment I've read from you on this site, in my opinion of course :) Couldn't agree more.
-
2
-
1
-
May 06, 2022 08:36 AMOr.... you can contact representatives in congress to codify abortion rights on the federal level so we don't have to worry about Roe v Wade and what potential future justices may opine. Unlikely though because both sides cater to much to the extremes of their parties with one saying never for any reason and the other okay even during birth for any reason, both with no compromise. Meanwhile the rest of us sit here frustrated this is still an issue used by politicians to divide and direct us when nearly 3/4 of us agree that a reasonable policy is closer to what we have here in CA.
-
2
-
1
-
May 06, 2022 07:48 AM@a-1651820549 you raise a very important point, thank you! EVERYONE who feels strongly about a women's right to choose, should contact representatives in congress to pursue the requirement that Amy Cone Barrett recuse herself from this case. Below are examples of Justice recusal. We also have Amy's own words regarding recusal. If she were to recuse herself, it could be a 4-4 vote on Roe v Wade and therefore Roe v Wade would stand as the law of the land!
Supreme Court Recusal, American Constitution society
Louis J. Virelli III Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law
https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/supreme-court-recusal/?msclkid=ff705bf9cd4711ec9d0c55129064dbad
The justices’ autonomy over recusal is reflected in practice. Notwithstanding their wide discretion in deciding whether to recuse, recusal is not uncommon at the Court. Stock ownership is among the most common grounds for recusal but is far from the only one. Justice Breyer has recused himself from multiple petitions in cases that involved his brother, a senior district judge in California. Justice Kagan recused herself from the controversial affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas, almost certainly because she had worked on the case while Solicitor General. In the October 2018 Term, Justice Kavanaugh recused from several cases he participated in while a judge on the appeals court, as well as Gundy v. United States, a constitutional challenge to Congress’s authority to delegate power to administrative agencies, because he joined the Court after oral argument. This past term, Justice Sotomayor recused herself from a “faithless elector” case, Colorado Department of State v. Baca, because of her friendship with one of the parties.
Amy recusal
Catholic judges in capital cases
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/
-
3
-
2
-
May 05, 2022 06:00 PMMany of the religious continue to cling to the belief that being anti abortion is a "godly" thing, and many of the non-religious continue to believe it is just the religious who are against a woman's right to choose. But neither stance is correct. For just one of many examples, please consider the case of Romania's executed evil dictator ceausescu. Ceausescu had virulent laws against abortion, making it punishable by death, I believe. But this stance did not spring from religion. Ceausescu was a lifelong atheist who despised religion, even when facing the firing sqaud no hymn for him, but instead sang the left -wing anthem---showing his life long hatred of the church and religion continued to the end. He had an early involvement in the communist movement and a thoroughly marxist anti christian education . Banning a woman control over her own body is like rape--it's about power and control, nothing else.
-
3
-
2
-
May 05, 2022 10:18 AMAlito's citations come from a man who believed witches should be murdered, wives were the possession of their husbands and rape between a husband and wife could not exist because of consent of marriage. This draft was supported by 4 other conservative Supreme Court Justices. This support demonstrates a blatant disregard for women's rights, they are not qualified to remain on the Supreme Court.
-
2
-
3
-
May 05, 2022 10:49 AMFalse
-
2
-
2
-
May 05, 2022 09:30 AMThis leak is the most egregious, intentional gaslighting I have ever seen and it blew up exactly as intended due to the low information populace who reacts off emotion, 30 second soundbites, and 140 character tweets rather than facts and an understating of the federal government, it's three branches and how they work, and the autonomy of our states. The shaky ground Roe v. Wade has stood on as been discussed by legal scholars at depth the past thirty years, by both the pro-choice and pro-life sides, yet when given ample opportunity to codify this with legislation on the federal level, legislation not for the extreme 'life begins at conception' nor 'abortions up until birth for any reason' but reasonable legislation supported by 70%+ of the voters, our political leaders have passed. Why? I firmly believe it's because politicians on both sides know they can raise a lot more money off people's emotions and talk about "Fighting!" for their cause rather than actually addressing the issue. And yet again, the populace played into their manipulative hands, exactly as intended.
-
3
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 09:30 PMThe supreme court has lost credibility. Alito and his right wing extreme religious group should be removed from the courts as they do not represent the majority of America. They move to suppress women and anyone who does not follow their extreme religion. People are tired of their conspiracy theories.
-
2
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 08:35 PMPeople should have access to abortion… there is a question of course as to what point that access should no longer be applicable (except for a few extreme situations as well as medical emergencies). Anyone care to state what point they think that is?
-
1
-
-
May 05, 2022 07:38 PM@PDW - the issue is women do not get their ultrasound scan until 20 weeks where every single thing is checked and it's compared to a genetic screening test. But due to lack of appts, this test might be performed until much later, then results even later than that. So if there's something abnormal, of risk, or very little chance the baby will survive (usually heart or brain defects) the woman has a very short window to decide what to do at that point. 26 weeks is reasonable if there was enough qualified healthcare and available appointment, but there isn't, so it's still a race to get an appt and results in ASAP to make those tough decisions. At 14-16 weeks as you suggest, the fetus is not developed enough to make some of those crucial measurements and tests. As a side note, avoid Dr. Soffici's office like the plague when pregnant, the only gig in town for "high-risk" pregnancies and the amount of mistakes I've heard of coming from that office is obscene.
-
1
-
1
-
May 05, 2022 05:09 PMCan one be pro choice yet also think that 26 weeks is completely ridiculous? Because I am pro-choice and think 26 is unreasonable. That’s over 6 months, I think the decision has to be made at 14 to 16 weeks.
-
3
-
-
May 05, 2022 01:12 PMInteresring regarding the Gallup Poll. There becomes a little more separation in Gallup poll trends when asked if abortion should be illegal or if roe should be reversed. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
-
2
-
1
-
May 05, 2022 12:54 PMAgree with 10:35. I am a male and I believe that women should have the right to choose. I also listen to people who are against abortion ("pro life") and acknowledge some valuable points they make. When I balance the 2 positions, pro choice wins out but not by much. Other people balance the 2 and pro life wins out.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are many women who are pro life. There is a Gallup poll that asks people to self-identify as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" on abortion. The data was from 2018 to 2021. In 2021, 1016 adults were interviewed. Of the 471 women interviewed, 43% were pro life. Of the 545 men interviewed, 50% were pro life.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
-
2
-
2
-
May 05, 2022 12:05 PMNot exactly, in the states that would ban abortion if, IF! Rv.Wade gets tossed it is already very hard from them to access the personnel and facilities to get one. Not agreeing that it should be tough to access one, but that is the situation.
-
5
-
1
-
May 05, 2022 11:42 AMDUKE - yes, "People should have access to abortion" - agree completely! Problem is, if Roe v Wade gets tossed, many people will no longer have access to abortions. Leaving it to the states will result in millions of women (mostly in the south and midwest) being forced to travel out of state or turn to back alley "doctors" to perform this procedure. This is not OK. Not in America. Not in 2022.
-
5
-
1
-
May 05, 2022 11:19 AMWith current trigger laws, in several states, when Roe is done away with all abortions will become illegal. In some states, the trigger laws would be cruel. For example, a female minor that is molested by a family member or raped will be required to carry the baby to term. Even talking about it under several state trigger laws will be grounds for prosecution. Let's start there.
-
2
-
1
-
May 05, 2022 08:47 AM944pm - there has to be parameters though, as if it’s legal at any/all points somebody )at some point t) will inevitably do it at the last possible moment. So there has to be some set of parameters. It’s an uncomfortable topic, but it seems important to determine what that point is.
-
2
-
-
May 04, 2022 10:35 PMDuke - I appreciate that you're trying to get past the rhetoric and are trying to find a compromise that would work. Compromise is the hallmark of a free society. Sadly, too many people on both sides of this issue don't believe in that. Thank you for trying.
-
2
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 09:44 PMThat's up to the woman and her doctor, and a doctor would never perform such a procedure. They'd do an emergency C-section with the hope of saving both.
-
2
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 09:20 PM857pm - I appreciate the answer, and honestly I’m not trying to argue here…26 weeks seems reasonable. What do you mean when you say “it shouldn’t matter at all”… would you be of the perspective that it should be allowed up until birth?
-
4
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 08:57 PMThere is no "what it should be" because the answer is subjective and based on opinion. In my opinion, it shouldn't matter at all because it's between a woman and her doctor and should not be up for legal debate. You can have another opinion, but the law currently says 26 weeks unless the mother is at risk and doctor and the mother look at different options. But you already knew that and love to argue so why do I even waste my breath?
-
2
-
3
-
May 04, 2022 08:42 PMSo that’s the law and what it should be? Or just that’s the law?
Should a state like Utah be able to vote to take that down to 20 weeks if they wanted (and California to 30) or is 26 weeks the “magic number”?
-
1
-
-
May 04, 2022 08:36 PM26 weeks, that's the law.
-
2
-
3
-
May 04, 2022 08:10 PM"Samuel Alito is reaching back four centuries to use Sir Edward Coke as a moral authority on abortion — a man who believed in witches and believed that they were working with the devil and believed that witches should be murdered by the state and he helped to make sure that they were murdered by the state in England"
-
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 05:53 PMThis is funny.
Several posters and their fellow parishoners are writhing in anger over Alito going back to 1868 for the 14th amendment.
These are the same people who go regularly back to 1791 for the Second Amendment and repeat their liturgical tenents about muskets and militias.
I am happy to go back in time for both.
2nd Amendment in 1791 as practiced allowed Americans to own the best weapons of the day without being in a militia and did so for 150 years when fully automatic weapons were banned.
The framers of the 14th amendment 1868 clearly did not intend abortion to be included (abortion was illegal) and this continued for over 100 years.
Being a judge means you have to look at that sort of thing to establish basis for the decision.
In our system the old saying "that was then, this is now" on the Federal level means that you have to go through the hard work of changing an amendment or crafting a new one in order to create an enumerated rather than implied right
The States should put it to votes individually and then move to the larger federal venue.
-
2
-
1
-
May 04, 2022 08:47 PMInterracial marriage and sodomy were illegal in 1868 too. Should those rights be taken away now and given to the states.
-
3
-
-
May 04, 2022 05:37 PMSell the Morning after pill and contraceptives over the counter
-
1
-
3
-
May 04, 2022 03:00 PMLucky for all you, you live in CA where killing fetuses will never be illegal.
-
2
-
1
-
May 05, 2022 12:35 PMVOICE at 11:59 - nitpicky.... but granted. Bigger thing is the vast difference you're ignoring. Pregnancy isn't contagious and can't kill those around you. Now, enough with covid. It's not the topic here.
-
1
-
3
-
May 05, 2022 11:59 AMUnder that logic, no one is stopping a women from getting an abortion even in states where it would be illegal, just as no one was holding down and forcing anyone to get vaccinated. The women may be fined and the unvaxxed will lose their job, but TOTAL AUTONOMY! Your logic is flawed.
-
3
-
1
-
May 05, 2022 11:37 AMVOICE at 11:03 - no one held down and forced anyone to get vaccinated, in fact many chose not to, despite all the science and evidence and consequences. Therefore, yes, TOTAL autonomy.
Nice try at hijacking the thread though!
-
1
-
3
-
May 05, 2022 11:03 AM"total autonomy over decisions about her health, body, and life" except of course vaccinations, which would mean not "total" so apparently there is some level of state intervention on a women's health, body and life that is acceptable to you. Disappointing how people totally memory-holed that as soon as it wasn't convenient anymore.
-
3
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 03:24 PMSFGA - yes, we are lucky to be in CA where a woman has total autonomy over decisions about her health, body and life. Tragically, millions of American women won't have the freedom if this court rules in the way it's leaning.
It's a good thing all those state who would strip women of their rights also have universal childcare, extended parental leave laws, stellar social benefits and top notch public education programs. Oh, wait......
-
-
-
May 04, 2022 01:27 PMIs there a rally this weekend
Would like to March but couldn’t make it on weekdays
-
-
-
May 05, 2022 10:02 AMMay 14
-
1
-
-
May 04, 2022 01:26 PMMarch for Women's Rights in Lompoc today from 4-7 p.m at the corner of H and Ocean. This is a very grassroots event, organized by a Facebook group (Lompoc Forum).
-
1
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 01:18 PMThis should give pause for thought ... the electoral college has resulted in minority rule and senators aren't necessarily the enlightened versions of the lower house. I'd also throw in Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) must feel completely duped.
-
1
-
1
-
May 05, 2022 09:40 AMBecause we're a constitutional republic. While it occasionally may work in your favor, 51% deciding everything for the other 49%, especially when most of the 51% live in large urban areas (a very different lifestyle with very different issues than those in rural America and small towns across the country), overall it will yield less resilient outcomes.
-
2
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 01:28 PMSenate - minority rule
President - can be elected by minority due to electoral college
Court - stacked by the president who can be minority elected
Congress - can be influenced by corrupt gerrymandering so districts work in favor of some powers
Sure doesn’t sound like a democracy to me now does it
-
-
2
-
May 04, 2022 12:39 PMA good read on the Atlantic on the issue at hand:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/alito-roe-opinion-abortion-states-rights-constitution/629755/
Pages