Skip to comments.
OFFICIAL ESTIMATE AT U.S. MARCH FOR LIFE: 200,000
LifeSiteNews.com ^
| LifeSiteNews.com
Posted on 01/25/2003 8:00:56 PM PST by Polycarp
OFFICIAL ESTIMATE AT U.S. MARCH FOR LIFE: 200,000
WASHINGTON, January 24, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) -
LifeSite spoke today with Nellie Gray the organizer of the March for Life in Washington D.C. Gray told LifeSite that the official estimate of those at the March was 200,000.
Jim Hughes, President of Campaign Life Coalition Canada attended the March and told LifeSite that it was "Unbelievable." Hughes recalled "We were standing at the staging area and we couldn't move, it took almost an hour to start walking. It was the coldest day in 10 years in Washington but we were kept warm by a sea of bodies. Everyone was upbeat and positive with average age under 25. It was a joyful mass of people talking, praying, chanting ... a very positive experience."
Gray said she was not concerned that the liberal media basically ignored the March. "Our work must go on, this is God's work," she said.
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: abortion; catholiclist; marchforlife; mediabias
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
bump
41
posted on
01/26/2003 2:47:54 AM PST
by
leadpenny
(I Think I'm In College!)
bump
42
posted on
01/26/2003 2:48:18 AM PST
by
leadpenny
(I Think I'm In College!)
To: UnBlinkingEye
Dont't forget: Even Fox fired Matt Drudge for wanting to air the picture of the unborn child reaching out of the womb grasping the doctor's finger.
There's a better one, but I don't have the URL.
To: Polycarp
My hope is that the United States Congress will pass a bill this year banning partial-birth abortion, which I will sign. (Applause.) Translation: Don't expect Congress to pass such a bill on my watch.
To: UnBlinkingEye
The Park Service stopped giving offical estimates of the crowds after the Nation of Islam threatened to sue them about the count of the attendance at the Million Man March. This is an "estimate" of the crowd. It just isn't the "official estimate," unless they've gotten a count from another law enforcement agency (or another government agency) gave them an "official count." If it is an "official estimate," I'd be curious to find out the source.
46
posted on
01/26/2003 5:21:03 AM PST
by
Catspaw
To: UnBlinkingEye
Here you go, this is the beginning of this years march. Count the marchers strung out across the raod and then multiply by a mile or a mile and a half.
We go every year and when the front of the march gets to the hill near the capital you can turn around and see marchers as far as the eye can see.
I have video of that view but I don't know how to convert .mov to.gif so I can post them. Sorry.
47
posted on
01/26/2003 5:29:47 AM PST
by
jwalsh07
(Boycott France, Germany and the UN)
To: jwalsh07
I count by how many people it would take to fill RFK stadium - I've been caught in the crowd leaving from concerts so many times that I know EXACTLY how large a crowd is 50,000 people (RFK capacity).
There were at least 2 RFK's worth of people there, tending towards 3 (100,000 - 150,000). I think 4 RFK's is a little high.
There was not even one RFK at the hate-America rally last weekend.
48
posted on
01/26/2003 5:54:37 AM PST
by
nina0113
To: Polycarp
We had a wonderful turn out for our march in Atlanta--a solid wall of marchers four or five city blocks long. Of course, the local paper described it as "500 people shivering in the cold". Big lie-- there were probably 5,000 people marching on a warm, sunny day in Atlanta.
Yes, I also noticed how young the marchers were. A good sign for the future. Also, I noticed a lot of young men probably in their 20's marching in groups. They appeared to be single men taking a stand against abortion--another good sign.
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
#3
Well said! Yeah, the jury sees that too.
50
posted on
01/26/2003 7:58:52 AM PST
by
Bogie
To: UnBlinkingEye
Ass kissing globalists don't tell the UN to screw itself regarding its culture-of-death family palnning and abortion policies.
You appear to be an ass-kissing pessimist.
51
posted on
01/26/2003 12:11:10 PM PST
by
Notwithstanding
(America: Home of Abortion on Demand - 42,000,000 Slaughtered)
To: Notwithstanding
Very well said (ahem.. ;-)
52
posted on
01/26/2003 12:21:03 PM PST
by
Polycarp
(Taglines should not automatically reload on non related threads...can someone fix this?)
To: Polycarp
Sorry you couldn't attend this year.
53
posted on
01/26/2003 1:41:06 PM PST
by
ELS
To: Polycarp
Despite tens of thousands of pro-lifers in Washington and just tens of pro-abortion protesters (a midday Planned Parenthood rally was estimated by Reuters at 150), Dan Rather misled viewers into assuming large crowds on both sides: "Tens of thousands of demonstrators on both sides of the issue filled the streets of Washington today." I've been there. I've seen it with my own eyes, year after year. A handful of pro-aborts hang out in front of the Supreme Court. They're depicted as equalling in number the pro-lifers. The press mis-coverage is maddening.
To: Aquinasfan
What I sent to Deal Hudson, in response to his listserv message about the March not getting coverage:
The pro-abortion supporters showed up in the evening, next to the "Silent No More" rally in front of the Supreme Court. As dozens of us told our stories of the pain our abortions have caused us, and how deeply we regret them, the pro-aborts were screaming "We won't go back!" down the sidewalk. The Silent No More rally actually got more coverage than theirs.
55
posted on
01/27/2003 8:03:46 AM PST
by
nina0113
To: nina0113
The Silent No More rally actually got more coverage than theirs. I'm glad to hear that, but was there any coverage from the lamestream media?
To: Aquinasfan
Yes! I think it was in the Washington Post, though it might have been the Times - we bought both of those plus our local paper. There was a picture of the candlelight vigil (though not of me setting fire to my acrylic nail trying to re-light one) and you could clearly see the signs "I Regret My Abortion". The pro-aborts had a larger group, but their photo in the paper was much smaller.
57
posted on
01/27/2003 8:59:05 AM PST
by
nina0113
To: nina0113
The pro-aborts had a larger group, but their photo in the paper was much smaller. Congratulations!
To: Dec31,1999
59
posted on
01/30/2003 8:05:59 PM PST
by
Coleus
(RU 486 Kills Babies)
To: Notwithstanding; UnBlinkingEye
60
posted on
01/30/2003 8:08:56 PM PST
by
Coleus
(RU 486 Kills Babies)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson