Being in the 2009 March for Life was great. The difference between the event itself and its media coverage is notable (There’s an article about the media coverage, with links, at Get Religion. One comment on that article: they commend the Post’s media coverage; however, it should be noted that the photos are careful to avoid showing the size of the crowd – from the photos, it could be just “thousands” as the article says rather than the more realistic estimate of, say, 300,000 which one reads in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).
One blog that I’ve found with extensive coverage is The Redhunter, which also has links to mainstream coverage.
You know, some complain about lack of media coverage, but what with folks putting pics on Facebook, etc. maybe it’s just another illustration of the change to new media.
At NRO, Michael Novak notes:
This afternoon, EWTN broadcasted the March for Life. I watched for nearly three hours as the march just kept streaming up the street, often as many as fifteen abreast.
As we think of the first African-American president in history, our minds drift to one class of Americans who will never be allowed to become president—the 45 million lives aborted in the womb since 1972.
Has it touched the heart of our first African-American president that the largest single number of the aborted are black children in the womb—13 million of them? . . .
Ed Morrissey reminds us today is the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade – the pro-lifers are marching on Washington D.C.
Since we always saw lots of coverage of anti-war marches on DC, even when only a couple thousand people showed up, I’m sure there will be wall-to-wall coverage, with pictures, on all the major news outlets, as a march that usually gathers between 50-75,000, sometimes more, takes place. You can google it, and hit the “news” button to see the nationwide coverage by the MSM. You’ll probably see at least one of those far-perspectives photographs showing the crowds walking down the mall…anytime, now…anytime….
As far is my personal observations: our own group, of 100+, had as many children as adults from the three parishes here in the New River Valley (St Jude, St Mary’s and Holy Spirit) and the bus ride up and back was fun too, due in large part to the skilled leadership of various parents. As to the March in general, it was wonderful to see such a wide range of folks united for life. I was grieved, however, but the relative lack of evangelical protestant participation at this march. [Hopefully, there will be a larger Anglicans for Life contingent next year]
The evangelical anglican blogs that I browse don’t mention it at all, being consumed with their internal ecclesial problems. I’ll be going to the winter conference for the AMiA (of which my wife’s a member) next week and hope for a chance to ask, for example, Thad Barnum about anglican silence on this matter.
Christianity Today quotes Chuck Colson:
. . . Yet evangelicals under age 35 are shaped by growing up in an era of legalized abortion, said Charles Colson. “Younger evangelicals remain pro-life, but I don’t think they have the same fire in the belly about the issue that older evangelicals have had,” he said. . . .
There’s also an interview with Congressman Mike Pence at Christianity Today.
I did see a good size contingent from Princeton University, whose professor, Dr Robert George, remarks:
. . . In this project, Obama is being served and abetted by a small number of Catholic and Evangelical intellectuals and activists who have been peddling the claim that Obama, despite his pro-abortion extremism, is effectively pro-life because of his allegedly enlightened economic and social policies will reduce the number of abortions. This is delusional. The truth is that Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to serve in the United States Senate or seek the Office of President of the United States. . . .
[continue reading the rest of Dr George's article on Our Struggle for the Soul of our Nation.]