Lawrence and Douglas county
Students protest against Miers
October 22, 2005
Advertisement
Their signs read "Value Women" and "Laws Do Not Belong In The Bedroom."
About a dozen people gathered before Watson Library on Kansas University's campus Friday for an abortion rights rally and protest against the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The group included state Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, and members of KU's Students for Reproductive Rights, the National Organization of Women, the Douglas County AIDS Project and other organizations.
Joy Lawson, leader of Students for Reproductive Rights, said the rally was meant to raise awareness about Miers. In a 1989 bid for Dallas City Council, Miers said she favored a ban on abortion except in cases when it saved the life of the pregnant woman.
Several students gathered to watch the rally.
Matthew Green, a KU sophomore from St. Louis, shook his head as he looked on.
"I don't support abortion at all," he said. "I don't support the choice whether to kill a life or not."
Heather Leger, president of KU Students for Life, said she needed to hear more about Miers and her views.
"I think there are still a lot of details that we'd like to know," she said.
Lawson said activism on KU's campus was disappointing.
"I wish there was more activity going on instead of just discourse," she said.
Top ads RSS
- CARPENTERS - FT positions available on school project in Baldwin ...
- FOOD SERVICE • Food Service Worker Underground Mon - Fri ...
- RETIREMENT COMMUNITY Pioneer Ridge Retirement Community is currently accepting applications ...
- Para Professional for pre-school classroom Full time. Benefits. BA in ...
- Systems Specialist I - KU Information Services
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Proposed constitutional amendment to block federal health care reform considered February 9, 2010 · 9 comments
- Blacks in military an enduring paradox February 7, 2010 · 36 comments
- ‘Tea party’ is Palin’s people February 7, 2010 · 186 comments
- Rep. John Murtha, Iraq war critic, dies at 77 February 9, 2010 · 80 comments
- The only choice February 9, 2010 · 45 comments
- Eudora man hospitalized after head-on crash into tree February 9, 2010 · 7 comments
- Police looking for light-colored, late model Mazda 3 in connection with January hit-and-run February 9, 2010 · 10 comments
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010 · 62 comments
- Blog: Haskell News Commentary Poses Some Student Questions To Venida Chenault, Acting Queen (Former Miss Pottawatommi 1970) For Haskell Indian Nations University. February 6, 2010 · 17 comments
- Blog: Marion - Disappeareded 1-23-2010 January 23, 2010 · 803 comments
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010
- Aldrich’s father gets to ‘live a dream’ — in Lawrence February 9, 2010
- Chancellor Gray-Little supports schools February 9, 2010
- Under her wing: Parent writes book on developmental disabilities February 8, 2010
- Henry gets physical for KU February 9, 2010
- HealthGrades releases list of hospitals with lower mortality, complication rates February 9, 2010
- UT forward miffed February 9, 2010
- Eudora man hospitalized after head-on crash into tree February 9, 2010
- KU communication studies professor is a finalist for MU post February 9, 2010
- Climber prepares to peak in Argentina February 8, 2010
22 October 2005
at 7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
srj (Anonymous) says…
Did anyone really think Bush was going to appoint a pro-choice judge? But he snuck both in because Roberts and Miers are not far right, make the democrates say “we could do worse”, then these two.
Abortion will be outlawed, and I hope before the 2008 election, so the republicans can suffer even more losses after losing seats in 2006.
22 October 2005
at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…
Actually srj it's the Dems who keep losing seats because people are tired of their ridiculous anti-American stance. If they don't want to be part of America, leave, stop trying to change everybody else. No one has the right to murder a child. Christmas should be celebrated, not banned. Marriage is between a man and a woman, the American people support this, but Dems don't.
22 October 2005
at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
i can only hope roe is overturned and outlawed forever.
one thing i find interesting, abortion is slowly attritting the democratic party. another thing i notice, the female protesters looked like lesbians and the males looked like gay guys -so why should either care about roe since neither would breed anyway?
22 October 2005
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MadAsHell (Anonymous) says…
Bankboy119 exemplifies the difference between intelligence and ignorance.
22 October 2005
at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
next time i'll read the article - i was going off personal observation of this minor protest.
22 October 2005
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MadAsHell (Anonymous) says…
Aren't conservatives supposedly tough on crime? Abortion as has been statistically proven to be one of the major factors contributing to the decline in crime rates over the past decade. All those unwanted babies that would've been raised in poor, uncaring families were arborted back in the 70s after Roe v. Wade; fast forward 20 years to when those angry, displaced youths would've been at the age most likely to commit crimes — they weren't around to commit those crimes.
Conservatives should get behind abortion rights solely for the crime and murders it prevents. Think of it as God's gift: more abortions = less crime.
22 October 2005
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
letsgetwise (Anonymous) says…
MAH—God's gift: more abortions=less crime
What is wrong with you? God's gift is the baby. Our chance to make a difference in their lives and in this world. Why are you MadAsHell? What are you so mad at? Because you're not getting your way, you're not getting what you want, when you want it? Sounds like a temper tantrum to me.
Babies are expensive, that is a truth; but let's kill them is not the answer. Being judgmental is not the answer.
“Conservatives should get behind abortion rights solely for the crime and murders it prevents.”
How many of those aborted babies were NOT murderers, and not criminals? How many of those hundreds of thousands of aborted babies were doctors, or lawyers, or social workers, or moms and dads that care, or teachers, or store owners. How many of those aborted babies were caring people that would have made a difference in this day and age? Maybe, just maybe one of those aborted babies could have come up with a cure for cancer, or aids, or the infamous “bird flu”. YOU have no right to decide whether or not a baby being born in any family is destined to become a murderer or criminal. YOUR statistics are fallible because peoples lives and circumstances change, and YOU cannot predict the future.
Wasn't there a movie with Tom Cruise, something like Minority Report?
22 October 2005
at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
abortion is a tool to remove more blacks from the population. is this the reasoning why the crime rates have gone down, MadAsHell (at unborn babies)?
22 October 2005
at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
Say's Law: “Supply creates its own demand.”
Translation: if you want to limit the quantity of abortions, limit the quantity of those seeking abortion. That's something that no Court can ever do.
22 October 2005
at 5:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Also I did not notice any signs that stated support for abortions and none of the protestors offered statements saying they would get an abortion if they became pregnant.
Furthermore I've never met a pro choice person who is pro abortion most certainly not myself as I have 3 children to prove it.
Outing a CIA agent thus endangering lives around the world,lying to congress and the american people, forging documents is a bit anti american I would say.
Neil Bush ripping off a savings and loan(people's retirement money) is mighty low down which is one more reason to support social security.
Additionally I offer this to support my position that the Bush family of politicians are anti american:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Con…
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/wea…
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featu…
22 October 2005
at 6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
erichaar (Anonymous) says…
God willing, one day our society will look at abortion as no more a “right” than a southerner in 1850's America had the “right” to own, beat, whip, kill or sell another human being.
Someday soon our children will read their history books and see the obvious, horrific similarities between slavery and abortion.
22 October 2005
at 10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
joylawson (Anonymous) says…
Through fetus worship women are being reduced to “incubators of the future” with total responsibility but no power its about women's power to control their own destinies. We are not talking about eugenics or killing here, we're talking about the right to choose. We're not talking about eugenics here and not all pro-choice people agree with abortion but instead a woman's right to choose. Pro-choice means giving future generations preventative ways to arm themselves so they don't have to result in abortion.This means comprehensive sex education, knowledge about contraception, birthcontrol, adoption, family planning, stis, aids/hiv, etc. Abortion is sometimes a woman's last resort, whether it be for her health, the health and life of the fetus, or personal life limitations.
23 October 2005
at 12:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
letsgetwise (Anonymous) says…
joylawson: “Pro-choice means giving future generations preventative ways to arm themselves so they don't have to result in abortion. This means comprehensive sex education, knowledge about contraception, birthcontrol, adoption, family planning, stis, aids/hiv, etc.”
As far as I can see, these are options that are already in place. I have no problem with a woman's right to choose which contraception to use before conception. But killing a baby after conception is not contraception. A means of “birth” control in a terrible sense of the term, would be more accurate. Call them fetuses if you wish, that does not change the fact that they are human babies. My understanding of what is on the books now is that for the life of the mother, an abortion can be performed. I'm not sure what else needs to be “chosen”.
23 October 2005
at 2:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
Why is abortion such a difficult decision for pro-choicers? I don't get it. Please explain it to me.
If it's just a blob of tissue, if it's not really a child, then it should be no more difficult than choosing to have your appendix removed. Right? So what is it about abortion that makes pro-choicers say it is so difficult and heartwrenching? If a person is honest, there is ultimately only one answer to the question. Abortion is a difficult decision for one obvious reason—it is the killing of an innocent baby, one's own child.
If abortion doesn't kill children, why would someone be personally opposed to it? If it does kill children, why would someone defend another's right to do it? The position of being personally against abortion but favoring another's right to abortion is therefore self-contradictory and morally baffling. It's like saying—exactly like saying—we're personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor's right to abuse his child if that is his choice.
23 October 2005
at 1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
joylawson (Anonymous) says…
Anti-choice rhetoric has changed after the passing of Roe to devalue women.
First of all, I think anti-choicers are forgetting about a whole population of our country. We need to remember not everyone has the same privileges that we may have. I have noticed anti-choicers who are influencing legislation and communities are all affluent, and in Kansas, priviliged white people. Education, health care, and simple necessities are hard to come by for millions of families. I don't see anti-choicers helping to stop that. I don't see anti-choicers offering to help young poor teens raise their babies after convincing them to carry to term. I don't see anti-choicers providing therapy for post-tramatic stress syndrom for those who give their babies up for adoption. I don't see anti-choicers stopping the chemicals that are killing our children everyday; the pollutants that are being omitted in our air, water, and food sources.
To lunancydetector, when you say killing children, the correct terminology is infanticide, and this occurs after the fetus is born.
Abortion is a hard choice to make. Its more than just deciding whats its called , whether its a 'blob of tissue' or a baby. This just proves my point that we are skirting the real issue at hand. Its the future of the woman making the decision, whatever you make of whats inside her. Anti-choicers have successfully installed the idea of this so-called 'baby killer'. They have installed this kind of fear in every facet of sex education, creating ignorance. This system helps to spread sti's and HIV. Don't you think it is a little suspicious that they are holding back pertinent information that could create healthy lifestyles.
For those who say we are Anti-American, we need to stop using patriotism to mask the real issue . Let's get back to what America was founded on: Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for all.
23 October 2005
at 11:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawktownie (Anonymous) says…
Hearing (or reading) people argue over abortion is possibly one of the most frustrating activities one can engage in. Can we agree that both sides are deeply grounded in their beliefs that abortion is either a) wrong or b) a sometimes necessary but never desirable action?
The issue at hand is the nomination of an unqualified, unforthright, and possibly radical woman to a position that could possibly dictate our rights and freedoms for the next 25+ years. Not only that, she just strikes me as not very intelligent. She seems more like an aging housewife than she does an accomplished lawyer. Whether you call it cronyism, patronage, or just plain favorites, it seems Bush has nominated far from the most appropriate choice.
24 October 2005
at 2:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
joylawson (Anonymous) says…
Here, here.
24 October 2005
at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawktownie (Anonymous) says…
i base it on my observations of her throughout these proceedings. The fact that she speaks through statements contrived by Bush's team (not even Roberts did that) as well as her high school-ish praise for anything Bush says, it all seems like she is relatively unable to formulate and communicate her own ideas. It sounds like the Senators are uniformly unimpressed and somewhat puzzled by her attempts to win them over. Supreme Court Justices should have a strong presence to them, I'll admit Roberts has it, but this woman is totally unimpressive.