Anti-abortion ad on BART angers activists

[davidinalameda]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/13/BAGT9GMTU81.DTL

Bay Area abortion-rights activists say a Roman Catholic group's advertisements on hundreds of BART trains and in scores of stations -- attacking the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision and asking "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" -- have gone too far in a region known for its progressive politics.

Many of the ads have been torn down or defaced since the campaign began three weeks ago.

"I think every woman has noticed them,'' said Suzanne "Sam" Joi, a member of Code Pink, a social justice and anti-war group. "I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''

The ads began appearing in BART trains and stations the day after Christmas. According to BART spokesman Linton Johnson, 280 of them appear in BART's rail cars and 48 larger versions are displayed in stations. The Respect Life Ministry of the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church paid $43,200 for the ads, scheduled for display through the end of the month.


governmental bodies like BART should not be taking any sort of political advertising

I can't imagine that they would take ads from candidates for office so why this

[Coastie for Truth]

1. Remember

A vote for Green Candidate Todd Chretien is really a vote to divide the Democratic vote - and give OUR Senate Seat to:

<>


Pro-Lifer Dan Lungren

You think the Progressive Agenda is on the ropes now - Senator Dan Lungren would be a vote to put John (Torture Memo) Yoo on the 9th Circuit - on his way to SCOTUS

<>
Then we'll really see these ads - even in Union Square and on the cable Cars and the Haight.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ally McLesbian]

3. I'll remember this

the next time I travel to the Bay Area.

BART is the Financial District Republicans' mass transit system anyway - with fares too expensive for mere mortals.

I'm never setting foot on a BART train again. I'm driving (even though my car is expensive enough to tell the world that I can afford BART fares).

[Glidescube]

4. Anti-Abortionist have rights too you know.

As an anti abortionist I think it's a good idea to give young women some direction to abortion alternatives. You will find that many many anti- abortionist, like myself, distance ourselves from the neocon barbarians and are fully against any reversal of roe v wade and would be appalled at the very notion. But to allow a young women to end her own pregnancy without some education or consultation to viable alternatives is unethical and mean spirited to women in an unplanned pregnancy. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING TO CHANGE SOMEONES MIND. Especially when they are about to do something the vast majority will regret the rest of their lives.

[Ally McLesbian]

6. I'm opposed to abortion on personal level too

especially the ones based on the sex of the fetus.

However, I will never tolerate religious "organizations" trying to sway political opinions one way or the other.

I'm extremely sick of the Catholic and other Christian organizations involving themselves in right-wing politics anyway.

Either BART promises to be fairer, or I'll never ride BART again. At least I count myself lucky to be outside the Bay Area, and no longer supporting BART's elitist policies.

[Kerrytravelers]

7. Funny, that argument isn't used when pro-choice groups do outreach.

We're called babykillers. Funny how that works...

[Kerrytravelers]

8. And your profile shows you're male.

Nothing like a man to direct a woman on what to do with her body and her private decisions.

[Glidescube]

9. I resent that

Men can be good friends wite women on a none sexual level too. We are not all knuckle draggers.

[Kerrytravelers]

10. You're right. That wasn't fair.

You're not all knuckle draggers but no where did I imply you couldn't be good friends with women. My husband and I know plenty of enlightened and progressive/liberal men we are friends with. But I really can not understand how you can not see that one side is allowed to inform the public while we are considered baby killers. When we strike back, we're shrills who only want to abort babies for votes. When the other side is decietful, lying manipulators, they are "saving this Godless nation."

Might I suggest reading through some of the other groups on DU, such as Women's Rights and Choice. Really try to understand exactly what is being expressed and feel free to ask questions (be sure to state you're anti-choice first or they will pulverize you) and see if you can understand what pro-choicers actually believe.

I understand you are a recovering rethuglian. My husband was once where you are, about six years ago. Once he got all those hateful rethug lies out of his head and saw what the reality was, he is now pro-choice.

[bliss_eternal]

12. Well said--

Good to see you, kerrytravelers! :hi:

[ronnykmarshall]

23. You can say that again.

[bliss_eternal]

13. Hi Glidescube-- (long)

Welcome to DU and the CA boards! :hi:

I'd like to attempt to talk with you about this and not at you. I'm going to try very hard to just talk about the issues you've brought up in your post. I'm very passionate about this issue, so forgive me (in advance) for length.

Firt of all--I see that you are anti-abortion. There are others on DU that are as well. The difference is most (from my knowledge) that consider themselves such are also pro-CHOICE. They believe in keeping it legal and safe for women that make the decision to do so, but I'm getting a bit ahead of myself.

This thread is addressing an ad that is apparently anti-choice in a very pro-choice part of our state. This is troubling--not because it's offering other alternatives to women, we aren't against that. The ad is problematic because it's a politician and a religion trying to manipulate and control, not offer alternatives. It is most of all trying to garner votes for a candidate based on their personal beliefs. He knows that is a subject that divides people and he is playing into that to try to get votes. It's not even there to as you say 'try to change someone's mind'. Do you see the difference?

If the ad was for a clinic that offered such alternatives, that may be more appropriate, and that would definitely cover what you spoke of. But it was not. People are opposed to such an ad in a city such as San Francisco, a city that is overwhelming pro-choice.

Quote:
But to allow a young women to end her own pregnancy without some education or consultation to viable alternatives is unethical and mean spirited to women in an unplanned pregnancy. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING TO CHANGE SOMEONES MIND. Especially when they are about to do something the vast majority will regret the rest of their lives.

Ok--now let's discuss this. Do you know for a fact that pro-choicers would not educate or offer alternatives when a woman experienced an unplanned pregnancy?

I happen to agree with you, this would be unethical and I would never endorse anyone that did not 'offer' such alternatives.

Do you know anyone that has had an abortion? How do you know that most will regret it the rest of their lives?

I'm uncomfortable with this statement on your part:
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING TO CHANGE SOMEONES MIND.

I respectfully disagree. There's a difference between OFFERING one viable options, and trying to make someone else do what WE feel they should do--because WE don't like or agree with their decision.

I'm not telling you that you can't be anti-abortion. You have that right. I don't like anyone judging me for being pro-choice, so I'm not going to do that to you. You have your reasons for believing what you do, as I have mine.

But regardless to what either of us believes neither of us has a right to try to change a woman's mind when SHE decides what to do during her pregnancy.

I used to work with pregnant women that were addicts. When those babies were born, many went through absolute hell--some didn't survive, some had irreprepable brain damage and would have problems the rest of their lives. Many of the women came in very early in their pregnancies, and sometimes I was privy to their counseling. Never did anyone try to sway them or try to tell them what to do. Honestly, after seeing what those babies endure *I* would have prefered some of them had aborted.I know that sounds awful, I'm so sorry it does. But I worked closely with those babies, what they endured was horrible. But honestly whether they aborted or not? Not my choice to make.

They were given all their options, and I don't recall any that didn't have their babies or placed them for adoption. It was heartbreaking for the child, but not our decision or choice to try to convince them to NOT have their babies.

All I ask, Glidescube is to consider another perspective. Everyone that is pro-choice isn't determined to get a woman to abort. No more than every person that is anti-abortion necessarily wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Most of us merely want women to have the choice--be safe and legal to be capable of making it themselves. That's all.

The divisions that this admin have created between conservatives and liberals is disturbing to me. We all share this planet, and need to figure out ways to coexist better.

I hope to see you post more frequently. Feel free to post any response to this or ask me questions about my stance if you have any. I really don't want to see you scared away or to feel that your ideas or opinions aren't welcome here. You are. :hug:

[davidinalameda]

16. it's not a question of rights

it's a question of whether or not a governmental body should be accepting political ads

would you want them accepting Klan advertising or Nazi advertising

and no, I'm not comparing anti-abortionists to the Klan or to Nazis

[bliss_eternal]

19. Excellent point, dwickham--

thank you for making it. :hi:

[fudge stripe cookays]

21. Where is that statistic?

Can you refer me to it? That the vast majority regret it? What are they using for evidence? Where are the numbers?

I had one. Don't regret it one bit. It was the best decision for me at the time.

[xxqqqzme]

24. you are anti choice not anti-abortion

The procedure is a medical one. Unless you are a doctor advising a woman, you have no business sticking your nose in anyones examination room!

[cascadiance]

5. Maybe we should demand a "Fairness Doctrine" be put in place here...

Perhaps demand that they put up "equal time" ads that say something like:

"Domestic Spying and executive privilege: Have we gone too far?"

Which shows clearly how the supreme court is likely to support Bush's crowning himself with more power with things like executive privilege "notes" onto bills, and covering up of cases with "State Secrets" privilege.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. I have seen ads for political candidates on busses

in Miami. There were a bunch on the back of busses last year for a guy who was running for Miami Beach Commissioner.

[EFerrari]

14. Jon Carroll did a column on those ads and on the public's

response to them in this column:


So here's a thing. Something called the Respect Life Ministry of the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church has paid $43,200 for anti-abortion ads on BART. The ads say "9 Months. The amount of time the Supreme Court says it's legal to have an abortion. Have we gone too far?" Let us leave aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court never said anything like that and that this ad is merely more pandering to the whole "activist judges" trope of the right-wing Christians. Let's note it, but let's move on.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/17/DDG5TG021S1.DTL

[bliss_eternal]

15. Oh--so they have money for that?

Yet the catholic church is crying that they are broke? Whatever.

[EFerrari]

17. I wonder if they got a "donation" for this campaign?

The idea of the Church being "broke" is sort of laughable, though, isn't it?

[bliss_eternal]

18. Absolutely--

it's not like I *believed* them. LOL. Just thought it odd, they would make such a claim, yet stuff like this pops up...

[marlakay]

20. Bart is just doing it for the ad money

My husband used to work for Bart for almost 30 years we just retired 6 months ago and moved out of CA but I know alot about them. During the 2004 campaign there was many of us that passed out fliers about the election at Bart stations. They let either side do it so long as you didn't bother the people. Its a very liberal area so most people were friendly. I used to go to the Walnut Creek station and there are some republicans in that area, but it just made it more of a challenge.

It is easy to take off the ad posters and some of them were very funny and my husband would bring them home. So I can see people taking them down. I know Bart is hard up for dollars but they should stay out of something as divisive as that issue.

[Ally McLesbian]

22. Walnut Creek...

Don't even get me started. Republican hellhole (relatively speaking).

I remember in 2000 a huge band of "Sore Loserman" protesters blocking traffic daily.

[arcane1]

25. lived there for 3 years...

and moved to SF in 2005 :)

and yes, you have it exactly right!

[Ally McLesbian]

27. Former Concord resident here...

so Walnut Creek was in my general area.

I was driven out of the Bay Area because I was unable to get even a low-paying secretary position in the Republican-dominated Financial District. And I am one of the best secretary materials you can ever find, especially with accounting and writing skills. (I'm transgender, so that hurt... these Repukes will find ANY way to get around the antidiscrimination laws of San Francisco.)

I am in Los Angeles County now. Far more Republican than Concord, Walnut Creek, or San Francisco, but at least I have my own business.

[arcane1]

28. whatever works!

I finally moved into the city, but I still have to trek to Pleasant Hill every day for work. It's an interesting daily contrast

WC did have a huge candle-light vigil on the night the Iraq war started,and I was surprised how many people showed up

[arcane1]

26. I saw a BuyBlue.org poster on BART today!!!!

:D