"We are calling on the people and workers of San Francisco and the Bay Area to rise up and completely stop them in their tracks and shut down their march."

Huh? Not only is the author attacking the marchers 1st Amendment rights, he/she is also assurring them a whole lot of publicity. If no counter-protesters showed up, only a few people would probably notice they were there. Instead, you assure them top billing on the nightly news.

Though there might not be a lot of anti-choicers in San Francisco, there are plenty of them in the surrounding smaller communities. Don't most groups go to San Francisco to march? Why shouldn't they?

"Walk for Life
is a national organization run by wealthy elites--the ruling class. Their agenda is not only to continue
the subjugation of women but to maintain the larger class system. Social
conservatism and authoritarian religions are ideology that the ruling
class uses to gain allegiance and support from members of the working classes, even
though it goes against their real-life interests. The true interests of society's
have-nots lies in resistance, and ultimately, social revolution to overthrow the rich and
powerful who control and exploit them."

This article makes a lot of claims, but gives absolutely no references to back these fantastic claims that amount to a statement of religious intolerance. It claims that this movement is backed by wealthy elites, but fails to name any. If you know anything about the pro-choice movement, you'd also know that it too is financed by wealthy, misogynistic elites. (For proof, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Scaife for an article on Richard Mellon Scaife, the anti-communist billionaire newspaper owner who crafted the scheme to bring down Bill Clinton through the Starr investigation and subsequent impeachment hearing.)

This article seems to be about as naive as most of the "pro-life" voters I've met, heavy on rhetoric with little facts to back it up. Though I am a feminist and pro-choice, this march is really meaningless to me. "Pro-lifers" have been around along time and most have been stupid enough to vote Republican based on this issue alone. This doesn't say a lot about their intelligence considering that the Republicans have had control of both houses of congress on several occasions and yet did absolutely nothing tangible to limit abortions at the federal level. The reason why is because they didn't actually want to.

The so-called Religious Right has been chumped by the Neo-Cons. The Religious-Right has cheered on the Republican party in exchange for legislation against abortion, but the Neo-Cons have just been playing along, without any real intent to ever change abortion laws. This is the main reason that hardline Republicans fought Harriet Myers' nomination so hard. It wasn't about her inexperience. She was clearly antiabortion and that is why her nomination was nixed.

The author should feel comforted by the fact that while Neo-Cons are in power, they are not going to outlaw abortion on their watch. The people who have abortions tend to be politically moderate or liberal, so those are the last type of kids that they want more of anyway (and we all know that they hate kids.)

I would really love to see the author organize a march or strike in protest of the fact that women still only make 74% of what men make? How about protesting the fact that women continue to be discriminated against in hiring for higher-paying positions rather than celebrating the fact that women are economically forced into sex work? These are enormous real life problems that severely affect the quality of life for women and children here and now -- not in the hypothetical future.