Still: What if every person who wanted to attend a rally this year spent those hours instead volunteering at a local crisis-pregnancy center? Or, what if they took the money that they would have spent traveling to a rally — and the money that they could have earned had they worked for those hours instead — and purchased baby diapers, formula, and clothes to donate to mothers who have chosen life in spite of being in difficult circumstances? Many community groups already sponsor such efforts — often coinciding with "Sanctity of Human Life Sunday" that many churches observe at the end of January — volunteering at or providing material support for local crisis-pregnancy centers. But it's still hard not to see the wasted opportunity cost of 200,000 people getting themselves to Washington to be seen marching on the Mall — when those resources could be used to reach out in far more personal and effective ways.The March for Life is great time for prolifers to come together and make a public stand. There will most likely be at least a couple of articles in large newspapers. It probably goes down as a really fond memory for the multitude of young people there. But sometimes I wonder if all the resources spent on bringing the thousands of people to Washington and back would be better spent elsewhere.
Michael New discusses abortion statistics and the good news for prolifers about prolife legislation even if the media would prefer to tell another story.
Kaye McSpadden should take the time to read Michael New's piece before writing editorials like this .
However, despite imposing more restrictions than many countries, the U.S. continues to have one of the highest abortion rates in the industrialized world. Clearly, increasing restrictions does not work to reduce abortions.The old two-prong attack: bad facts and a logical fallacy. McSpadden heads the Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice but apparently isn't a member of the clergy herself but does appear to be active with the Unitarian Universalists.