Walk for Choice Brings Women's Health Care and Abortion Rights Fight to Downtown

By Patrick Michels Fri., Feb. 25 2011 at 3:45 PM

Categories: Events

Pin It

Tomorrow at noon, pro-choicers from around Dallas will be meeting up at JFK Memorial Plaza and moseying through downtown for a "Walk for Choice" protest, against a run on bills around the country aimed at slashing funding for women's health providers and limiting access to abortions.

The Dallas event is one of dozens of walks around the world tomorrow -- most in the U.S. -- and comes a little more than a month after the anti-choice "March for Life" drew a sizable crowd (including Jeff Dunham's creepiest puppet character yet) that shut down streets around the Arts District.

This weekend's walk is a less formal deal -- partly because it all came together so fast, organizer Logan Haynsworth told Unfair Park this morning. Instead of a march through the streets or at City Hall, which would require permits, Haynsworth says the walk will run along Elm and Main Street sidewalks before looping back to the plaza. On the walk's Facebook page, around 400 people have signed on so far.

Dallas is also one of a few cities with an anti-choice counter-protest planned, this one organized by Pro-Life Texas. They'll wear red to show their opposition to the pro-choicers, who will wear orange, which probably won't be confusing at all.

(I couldn't track down any of the counter-protest's organizers, and they didn't reply to an e-mail through the Pro-Life Texas website.)

Haynsworth says the Walk for Choice grew out of a response to Republican-led efforts in Washington to axe federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and that a series of state laws amped things up further -- including one in Georgia that'd make it a crime to miscarry, and a bill in South Dakota (since shelved, though it's since been proposed in other states) that would expand "defensible murder" to include killing an abortion provider. Here in Texas, a bill passed in the Texas Senate that'd require women to have a sonogram done at least two hours before an abortion -- one of Rick Perry's "emergency" issues for this session.

The wave of bills amounts to "a complete attack on women's health rights," Haynsworth says. "It's not partisan -- it's more just standing up for your rights as a human being."

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

"Unless Planned Parenthood is defunded, we will shut down the government." Sorry it took so long to reply. I hadn't checked my junk mail folder in a while.
he dosnt agree
I could not agree more with "unnecessary thing", unless it is an ectopic pregnancy or other medical condition that threatens the physical life of the mother. Abortion is done casually all of the time, sometimes for things as trivial as sex selection. You also have Irene Vilar, a self-described "abortion addict" who has had 15 abortions at last count. 53,000,000 killed since Roe V Wade, that sounds pretty casual to me. Your list of Prenatal care just appears to be a list of health defects Planned Parenthood checks for so they can sell the product of abortion. I suggest women go to REAL doctors, not the kind of con artists that will try and convince you that your significant other got an STD from a toilet seat (while technically possible, it is likely extremely rare. I know a Planned Parenthood worker that used this line all the time). If you want to see more support for women and better insurance coverage I am all for it, not to the point where it becomes a reward system, but enough that women can get by without too much discomfort. Write your lawmaker, or write a bill and start a petition to get it on the ballot. I'll even gladly vote for free government Vasectomies and Tubal Ligations for those who want them and cannot afford them (or Essure the new form of sterilization). Laws presently protect women from getting fired from their jobs, unless they are a "contracted model". "unless ALL OF THAT is true" this sounds more like a terrorist hostage system with demands. We at Planned Parenthood will continue to kill children unless you prvide us with the following :) There are no children in the adoption system, we import them from China and Russia all the time, freaking women are sliced open so that babies can be sold on the adoption black market in the US. Yes there are children in the Foster care system, but they do have homes, and not all of them are available for adoption. I would love to see this situation resolved for the best of the children in foster care. The foster care situation in reality often works like this "You are financially struggling and have too many children, abort your current pregnancy, or we will put your kids in foster care, Love CPS". If a business opens that teaches sex education and family planning, puts an emphasis on abstinence but also provides various methods or birth control, then I'll likely have no issues with funding as long as they do not perform or provide referral to abortion clinics. I also want to see a place that provides REAL condoms, out of the 1000's of condoms I have used the three I had which broke came from Planned Parenthood. Lets also teach people responsibility comes hand in hand with our choices, too much of this pansy mentality of steamrolling over the consequences (negative or positive) of our actions, even if the consequences are our own children.
How about I'm one of those women who is in danger of losing her life due to complications in pregnancy. I happen to be a very young woman that has had type 1 diabetes for more than ten years of my life. Carrying a child would put my own life at serious risk. What about my rights? Birth control is not recommended by my medical doctor due to an increase in stroke. Surgery that isn't absolutely necessary is out of the question as I don't heal at a proper rate. IUD's are out due to increased risk of pelvic inflammation and infection. That leaves condoms, the morning after pill and abortion. I happen to be a very cautious and safe person that hasn't had to exercise that third option just yet but the point is, if I should ever need it, for any reason, it should be available. The second point being, It shouldn't take a dialog like this one to CONVINCE anyone that women have a right to choose what happens with their own bodies. How dare you say we're taking out our men issues on unborn children. Not everyone can agree when life starts, but I think everyone can agree women that are able to have children are certainly alive and their life matters too. Can you imagine how men would react if they were told they couldn't receive adequate medical care regarding parts of THEIR bodies?
but but but I'm a fan of assisted suicide, too! hahahah
lulz, troll moar, anti-choicer.
I'd be more than happy to help prevent abortions; it's the main reason I support Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood helps prevent abortions. There are so many birth control methods available: the pill, DMPA, condoms, etc. All of these are ways to save the lives and quality of life for woman and girls around the world. By helping woman control family size, they also save the lives and quality of life of children around the world. Parents are better able to devote more time and resources to the children they have and raise the next generation in healthier and happier environments. I can understand the US's pro-natal philosophy. A colony needs members to survive. We're not a colony anymore. We need better sex-health education in the States. Yes, abstinence is one way to prevents pregnancies and STDs ( To those who say it's the only method that's 100% effective, I think there's a building downtown dedicated to one notable exception.), but we need to discuss and explain the options available and then MAKE SURE THOSE OPTIONS ARE AVAIALABLE. If we're going to be serious about preventing abortions, then we need to be serious about birth control. If you don't like the idea of an IUD because it prevents a fertilized egg from finding purchase, then you can use a condom and there's no fertilization. Why not prevent the egg from even being released, as with many hormonal methods? Heck, if you're really serious about preventing abortions, why not look at the reasons a pregnancy isn't wanted? How about the health issues? Provide care for the mother when she needs it. You want a healthy baby? Prenatal care is vital and <a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/prenatal-care-4255.htm">Planned Parenthood provides it</a>. Once the baby is born, how is the mother supposed to care for it? Programs like WIC handle some of that. If we're going to be serious about being pro-life, then let's take care of that life! Is it a financial problem? Can the woman not afford to have the child? How much work will she miss while pregnant? Does her employer offer maternity leave or is she facing job-loss for that baby? If she loses her job, HOW IS SHE SUPPOSED TO CARE FOR THE CHILD? No one joyfully has an abortion. It's a horrible, invasive, painful, traumatic, messy, embarrassing, heart-wrenching, and unnecessary thing. It's not a casual decision. Unless everyone has access to safe and affordable birth control, unless everyone has access to prenatal care, unless everyone has pro-natal job protection, unless everyone has the financial stability to have and care for a child, unless everyone can guarantee health care for all children, unless all rapists wear condoms, unless there's no such thing as a “complication”, unless the mother's life is never at risk, unless insurance will cover 100% of a birth, unless we can find homes for every child in the adoption system, unless there's a real effort to educate people, unless ALL OF THAT is true... ...Then we just aren't serious about preventing abortions.
ESPECIALLY rice krispie treats
WTF - I just want the effing potholes fixed - when are we going to start talking about the important stuff again. This abortion crap is just more smoke and mirrors to get everyone arguing so that the billionaires can resume their quest to steal all of the money. Can't you morons figure that out. No, you're too busy bickering about this BS, as well as who is yeah Conservative, yet want to regulate everyones' private lives, or boo - evil Liberal, Socialists, who want to regulate everyones' private lives, etc. Get a clue fools. If there is a God, which there isn't, he's laughing his/her ass off at how you clowns spend your free time. Meanwhile the homeless guy is peeing on the building across the street - guess I'm not really pro-life afterall.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 At what point in time is a HUMAN FETUS ... NOT a HUMAN? According to Articles 2, and 3, it appears they are HUMANS and 6, PERSONS. Also, by definition, a Human Fetus is Human, not Canine, Feline etc. When will the United States begin complying and protect the Human Fetus' rights as enumerated above? On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories." Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. All things are one of three Either they are: Alive, or Dead, or Inert Inert things are incapable of growth, developing further or moving under their own power, like a rock. Dead things are things which WERE ONCE ALIVE, BUT now lack all signs of life, such as growth, developing further or moving under their own power, like a rock. Alive things have at least some sign of life, therefore they are not dead, nor inert. Humans, at any stage of development, can only be alive, or dead, never inert. Schrödinger's Cat proves that in REALITY, nothing can be alive and dead at the same time in the same place. To stop a human's right to grow and develop further, no matter how old that human is, is genocide and wrong. The United States set up arbitrary criteria, like the Nazis did, like Chinese did, like Taliban does, to justify stopping a human's right to continue to age and develop further, rather than to abide by and comply with the Declaration of Human Rights.. So, by extension of that logic. Sharia law allowing a man to burn his wife since she is just property, killing Chinese kids because you wanted a male instead of female, murdering Blacks or Jews, killing off the elderly who drain our society is ok .... they aren't really "people" by the criteria that is chosen. Those elderly in nursing homes can't even survive on their own, so they aren't "VIABLE" let's choose to unburden society, please obtain "medical power of attorney" and volunteer your grandparents to be killed and dissected, and the parts donated to benefit others through the donor programs.
I’ve been thinking, the elderly are draining our nation’s healthcare system, Nursing homes draining Medicare, Medicaid. Most primary caretakers are family whose time is being unfairly consumed. And, I recalled seeing two movies which seem to have the solution. Logan’s Run; people are exterminated at age 30 Soylent Green; people are recycled into food I’m pro-human rights; every fetus discussed is a human one, not feline, canine etc. I’m anti-murder-for-hire. Everything being either 1) inert, 2) alive or 2) dead Schrodinger’s cat essentially proves it can’t be both dead and alive at the same time in the same place. 1) A human fetus is not inert, it moves under its own power and grows. 2) I won’t get into if it is alive 3) It isn’t dead, since it is not absent all signs of life. Sustainability Old Indian women could be put outside to freeze to death, many elderly aren’t capable of sustaining themselves. Criteria: Any criteria set up that: “It’s ok to take life if” is extremely dangerous. Some criteria in the past were: if they are Jewish If they are Black If they are handicapped If they are old If they are young In China it was “If they are female” Wait and ask that old Indian woman who can’t feed herself if she wants to die or not. Ask that handicapped kid if he wants to die or not. That human has rights. It isn’t “OK” (justifiable) just because some arbitrary criteria makes it “feel ok” I’m pro-choice in that the elderly and young who can’t stand up for themselves should have an advocate, and an input on a life-ending decision, until they can voice their choice, otherwise, it's just "bullying" on the arbitrary criteria of age-discrimination..
Which person? Rather which Human? Big humans forcing little humans is called "bullying" Oliver Wendall Holmes said “Your right to swing your fist, ends where my nose begins” Any time a more powerful group or bigger being capable of (bullying) asserting (imposing) it’s “choice” over the will of the lesser one. That’s not choice, it’s dictatorship and forcing one to die “because it’s Jewish/Black/handicapped/inconvenient/too young/too old to live in our Indian camp and has no husband to support her, so we'll put her out to freeze” Old/Young criteria are merely age discrimination. They are both human. They both have rights. I support the little human’s right to grow and develop and continue aging. I support its right to pursue happiness as an individual right. Anytime a person or group is “de-humanized” by some arbitrary criteria, like they kill gays in some countries, females in others Jews in others, etc etc. that arbitrary criteria is not only unjust and wrong in depriving the one de-humanized of its rights, but it does give Hitler’s followers a good conscience that they did nothing more than stomp on a snake egg. That’s why a Man in the Taliban may kill his wife he mistakenly married 9 months ago if she becomes a burden; after all, wives and cattle are just property. If the husband can’t put up with her, don’t force it. The husband’s right to pursue happiness and be pro-choice is healthier for both the husband and the nagging wife who thinks she may express HER opinions. Forcing a man to continue supporting an unwanted wife is imposing on his individual rights. You can’t force him to support a wife out of hate, the psychological damage for both parties could be extremely harmful. Divorce wouldn’t be an option (adoption) because who would want a crabby wife? Besides, the new owner might be cruel to her, better just kill her and set her on fire right? Fire is already lit from barbecue the cow. Sorry, it sickens me how anyone can “justify” something by de-humanizing a group or class of humans. And the one with the most to lose should make the “choice” The one giving up the right to continue aging, growing and developing. The key word is not “bully” and discriminate against the de-humanized human. Stop the bullying, stop the age discrimination, if it's illegal to kill old people even after they WANT to die, stop killing those Humans too young to voice their preference.
Both "pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" are crappy terms used by opposing sides to belittle those that don't agree with them. Nobody is for abortion as if it's a ceremonious act or something, and as much as some people may find offense there are those who have difficulty asssociating gestating molecules as a human baby. To the other side, "anti-choice" belittles the other side and dismisses any honest moral difference they may hold. Both sides take sweeping generalizations in an attempt to dismiss the others' viewpoint. I think going with pro-life and pro-choice is probably the best way to go about it with the "anti-choice" and "pro-abortion" terms phased out. You're only asking for heated conjecture from other sides with terms like those.
While I ,would not abort,I do believe,it is the right of the person ,to make that decision,not the Government. I also have a problem with people, who love ,fetus's, but not support health care for baby after birth,if mother is not financially able to pay.
Why don't the pro-lifers, just get a law passed, that says they will take care of the new born child until adulthood??? On second thought they would probably not be pro-life anymore.
It's sad. The last time I checked abortion was legal. It has become a private matter that, again is assaulted, with violence, by malefactors searching purpose. Sigh. I guess we must march.
Jack-e, I agree, I figure the paternal unit has at best 49% say in the matter. But, I'd figure you, being a non-breeder, would have even less say. I don't mean to shut you up, kinda thought you might find that kinda funny.
Forcing someone to give birth to a child they would rather kill than look at does not make any sense to me - unless you are willing to take responsibility for the child yourself. If you wish to raise these children and give them everything a child needs to thrive in this world then it makes sense.
I am sorry ladies, you are not smart enough to make these big decisions by or for yourself. You need someone with a penis and a receding grey hairline to decide for you. Maybe when you mature you will understand why you are weak minded. Your time should be spent making babies and rice krispie treats and I'll decide when you need a breast enlargement.
I don't see GOD stepping in to stop them .... You know The Master of the Universe ...
Man, I think we're only a few comments away from reaching a consensus on this issue. Keep working kids, you're almost there!
JJ, you do know that the Bible doesn't see life in the womb as equal to life on terra firma? The punishment for killing a woman's fetus IS NOT equal to murder. I don't think abortion is an insignificant or simple issue. I respect your concern for these entities that can't defend themselves. They certainly have some rights, but not the full panoply of rights of a naturally born citizen, a six-teen year old with a driver's license, an eighteen year old who can vote, or a 21 year old who is finally allowed to drink. Though they can't serve in Congress till they are 25, the Senate 30 and President till 35. Our rights, our legal standing develops over years. So, your equating a zygote with a fetus is wrong just as it's wrong to equate a fetus to a 21 yr old. Ultimately, in law they say possession is 9/10ths of the law. Whatever you want to say, a embryo in the first 3-5 months is wholly dependent on the mother's womb for life. I appreciate discussions and limits on how late a woman may have an abortion. But, you should really resent Republicans who inserted a poison pill in their partial birth abortion bill--a bill Dems supported. But, the GOP insisted in inserting a provision that there would be no exemptions for the life of the mother. Can you imagine, that bill suggested a woman could have a choice to have a baby or not, but no choice in whether to be a martyr.
It is safe to say that your position--or rather, focus--is singular. The fact that you have no interest in even discussing other aspects of female sexuality is disappointing. Effective birth control results in no harm.
"guest," Is it possible you have projection issues? Do you really think females seek an abortion to exercise their "grrrlll power?" And if so, when the Supreme Court made the ruling mandating abortion a legally protected right, were they too exercising "grrrlll power?"
When actual ideas are nonexistant, resort to sexism!
Fine. We agree to disagree on the medical science. But you don't have the right to obstruct, harass, threaten, restrict or withhold my access to legal healthcare. And you don't have the right to spread untrue and completely discredited medical information (i.e., abortion causes breast cancer) just to scare women.
@ Guest. My position is about neither -- it is about the life that is being ended when a woman exercises the choice to kill the human being that she carries. @ Brenda Marks. While I respect your right to hold whatever view you choose to hold, I have every right in the world to disagree with you and to advocate for my view -- which is that you are ending a life -- whether you choose to refer to that life as a fertilized egg, a zygote, or a fetus.
@Guest - But a 'choice' about what? We all make choices every day, it's not like they want to restrict a woman's right to chose what she wears.
Count me as one of a gazillion women who are tired of men interjecting themselves into my personal medical decisionmaking process. I don't want to have a scientific argument about when a fertilized egg becomes a zygot becomes a fetus becomes a fetus that can survive outside the womb. I just want to be left alone to make the decision myself, with the consultion of my doctor, or anyone else of MY choosing. That's choice. Period. And I have no desire to stick my nose in any guy's Viagra or vasectomy decision. So you guys are safe to do whatever you damn well please.
I think pro-choice is more accurate. It means the person believes in choices and the legal soundness of the law though they themselves may not choose to exercise it. Even further, there are anti-abortion advocates that have had abortions. So, using the other terminology, it would mean they were pro-abortion at one time or another. And if you have sperm, you do have a dog in this hunt.
I don't disagree.
I am interested to know where you stand on medically sound sex education--perhaps showing fetus development prior to a state imposed inquisition--and other areas of pregnancy planning. Example, what do you think about Planned Parenthood possibly having their federal funding revoked? The bulk of what they do is help women with birth control and other gender health issues--services that are affordable.Where do you stand on insurance premiums that are higher for women because of more complicated reproductive health issues? Is your position about compassion or control?
Good point, but calling it pro-choice and anti-choice at all whitewashes what we are really talking about. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Being male I don't have a dog in the hunt, but people need to call it what it is.
Aborting or not aborting is the choice that "Pro Choicers" want to maintain. So, if you decline to have an abortion, you've still made a choice because, legally, you could've chosen to have an abortion. If abortion were made illegal or otherwise severely restricted, there would no longer be a choice to make as there would only be one legal way to go (having the baby). Hence the term "anti-choice" because the movement is predicated on the idea of removing the choice. (Though, personally, the "anti-choice" term still gives me pause because it seems like the authors are taking a position in the matter. Less important in the Observer blog, which is less "objective" by design).
Interesting slogan for the "Walk for Choice" group -- "We have a voice, we have a choice." Of course, the babies who are killed via abortion have no voice of their own, which is why the pro-life movement will be on hand to give lend their voices to those babies. Also, I'm intrigued by the author's use of the term "anti-choice" -- is declining to kill one's child via abortion not also a "choice"?