1000s ‘Walk For Life’ In San Francisco To Mark Roe Vs. Wade Anniversary

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS)— Tens of thousands of people gathered Saturday at San Francisco’s City Hall for the 8th annual Walk for Life, one of the largest pro-life demonstrations on the West Coast.

The event normally takes a route from Justin Herman Plaza to Marina Green, but a scheduling conflict altered the walk to go from Civic Center to Justin Herman Plaza this year. The event draws people from all over the country.

KCBS’ Mark Seelig Reports:

A competing rally of pro-choice demonstrators met on Market Street about a block away, but had a considerably less amount of people. State Senator Mark Leno was among them to talk about safe an affordable access to abortion.

Eva Muntean, co-chair of the event, said the Bay Area has one of the highest rates of abortion in the U.S.

“Abortion hurts women. We know personally of a lot of women who are hurting from their past abortions,” she said.

Several stages were set up at the event where some women described what a mistake their abortion was.

Stephanie Tang with World Can’t Wait, a group standing up for abortion and birth control, said the ultimate goal of Walk for Life is the “re-banning of abortion and the end of contraception”.

“I think it’s absolutely unconscionable and it would mean that we live in a society where women are not considered fully human,” Tang said.

SFPD are stationed at the starting point, final destination and all along Market Street to keep things peaceful.

The walk coincides with 39th anniversary weekend of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in the U.S.

(Copyright 2012 by CBS San Francisco. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

More from Mark Seelig
  • hollywoodron

    Why does the pro-choice get the last say?

    • K

      Because smart women don’t let politics or other nonprofessionals make medical decisions for themselves!!

  • Shannon Marie Federoff

    We live in a society where babies are not considered “fully” human. How can we then be shocked if women aren’t “fully human?”

  • OneoftheSheep

    Oh, beautiful San Francisco! Thousands upon thousands of us walked your streets today standing for life, praying, singing, witnessing to the goodness of Creation and the Creator. Each year, our opposition grows older, grayer, and more pitiable. Let us pray for those who refuse to grant a place in society for the unborn child. How sad. How selfish. How wrong.

  • neil

    on the OFFICIAL Capital Corridor train site there was a schedule alert calling the march “The Anti-Choice” march. Hilariously obvious in the writers stance. Since we don’t call ourselves this term is this the official view of Capitol Corridor?

  • alex

    And of course, the media will say tens of thousands. Why not give figures?? Well let me help the reporter, there were about 50-60 thousand people walked for life. nuff said.

  • weberino

    Why even quote Leno today. This is the one day of the year we have a chance to show a public display for those that can’t speak up for themselves, and all you can report is this drivel? For once report the positive side of what we are doing without the commentary of the opposition that amounted to no more than maybe 200 people….Please?

  • steve

    hey, I was there and I’m glad they at least are reporting on it…we’re making progress.

  • K

    Can someone please explain to me why birth control is such a terrible thing? And if your only answer is because “the Bible says it’s bad,” then don’t even answer cause that is just dumb.

    • pro-life feminist

      To take a more scientific perspective, let’s look at how common birth control methods work. Pro life people affirm the scientific fact that a new, genetically distinct human being is created at conception and should be protected from a termination of its life. lets see how birth control methods fit into this.
      Natural Family Planning/Fertility Awareness methods- let women track their fertility and avoid intercourse on fertile days to prevent egg and sperm from uniting.
      Barrier methods (condoms, diaphragms, sponges, etc)- block sperm from entering cervix to unite with an egg.
      Hormonal methods (pill, patch, insert, NuvaRing, hormone shots) prevent pregnancy in one of three ways 1. preventing ovulation 2. thickening cervical mucus 3. thinning uterine lining so an embryo cannot implant. Now the first two prevent sperm and egg from ever meeting, but the last one (granted, the least common one) prevents an already fertilized, new life in the form of a blastocyst from being able to sustain its life by attaching to the uterine wall. The days old embryo would then die.
      Intrauterine devices (IUDs)-( may administer hormones, see above) also work by blocking sperm flow and creating a slight irritation in the uterus which creates a hostile environment in which the embryo cannot implant.
      I find nothing wrong with any of the first methods, but i think the two that can result in the demise of a days old embryo is morally wrong since it is post-conception and thus a living human being that will develop into an adult if left unharmed.
      To summarize, i am completely fine with 13 of the 20 specific birth control methods recognized by planned parenthood. Some people have more philosophical reasons against them, but looking at just science and the ethic of not destroying a human life after its conception, that’s what i came up with. that makes me in favor of more than 60% of birth control methods.

      • MissLove

        How refreshing to see people like you who support feminist ideology, and have thoughtfully considered the scientific facts of where life begins. Thank you!

  • OneoftheSheep

    AS for birth control, I suggest you google Couple to Couple League out of Cincinatti, Ohio or Janet Smith who is quite eloquent in her explanation. Or, you might try reading up on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body or Christopher West’s explanation of JPII’s Theology of the Body.
    Natural family planning is safe, effective and does not harm either the man or the woman. It is open to life. The chemicals and the steroids and the artificial means of birth control are damaging to the health of the woman.

  • Rosie

    To apologize in advance, I know this reply might seem waaay too long, but your question is an important one that deserves a real answer.

    I was at the Walk for Life yesterday, and I can tell you that birth control in the sense of responsible parenthood is not a bad thing. This is why God gave women cycles of fertility–so that she and her husband can abstain from intercourse during her fertile periods if the mother is seriously ill, if the father just lost his job, etc. This is commonly known as “Natural Family Planning.”

    Birth control as commonly practiced (contraception, the Pill) is different from responsible parenthood because it undermines the whole basis of parenthood: namely, that the love between the husband and wife is a selfless love, open to new life instead of closed in on itself. It is one thing to forgo the physical expression of love during certain times; it is an entirely different thing to alter the meaning of the sexual act by suppressing one’s fertility.

    The sexual act has an intrinsic meaning of its own–what we do with our bodies communicates a message whether we intend it or not. If I engage in the sexual act, what I am saying with my body is that I give myself unconditionally, exclusively, permanently to my partner. By using contraceptives I am withholding a portion of myself–my fertility–and artificially cutting off the life-giving aspect of marriage from its love-making aspect. Is it any wonder that the divorce rate doubled after the Pill was introduced? Is it any wonder that couples who practice Natural Family Planning have a divorce rate of 2-5%, unlike the 50% rate in mainstream culture?

    Of course, one could question whether the intrinsic meaning of the sexual act actually is total self-giving, but take a look at the traditions and ideals of every culture for thousands of years. Yes, divorce, polygamy, and worse have been permitted since the beginning of time, but “happily-ever-after” is the ideal of every fairy tale and every love story. Imagine what would happen if you went to a wedding and gave the bride or groom your phone number, in front of his/her spouse, telling him/her that you’d like to marry him/her when he/she was finished with his/her current spouse. Even in today’s divorce-friendly society, such an offer would be seen as an insult. Lovers always believe their love will last forever. And it should.

    • Rosie

      Sorry, I didn’t realize that OneoftheSheep had already responded to K!

      It might be good to mention that almost every chemical contraceptive is also an abortifacient–if it does not succeed in preventing conception, it will kill the fertilized egg–i.e., young human being–by preventing its implantation in the womb.

  • Bruce in Kansas

    @K: Here’s a way of looking at it that helped me. Like sex, eating has both pleasurable and life-sustaining aspects. When we encounter someone who enjoys the sensual aspect of eating, but deliberately acts to thwart the life-sustaining aspect, we rightly call that a disorder (bulimia, anorexia, etc). When it comes to sex however, we turn this on its head and insist on acting to thwart the life-sustaining aspects. So much so that the Supreme Court ruled that abortion HAS TO BE legal because we have ordered our lives on contraception, and if contraception fails, abortion HAS TO be available so we can enjoy our sex-without-consequences lifestyle. See Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992. In 2013, the Affordable Care Act will require Catholic colleges and hospitals to buy insurance that pays for artificial contraceptives, forcing them to violate their religious teachings.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Guide To The Holidays
Shine A Light On The Holiday Season With ‘Giving Tuesday’

Listen Live