">

Actors Cybill Shepherd , left, Whoopi Goldberg , center, Ashley Judd , and Christine Lahti , back right, march in Washington, Sunday, April 25, 2004, during an abortion-rights rally. Shepherd and Goldberg wave coat hangers. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Looks like Caroline Kennedy next to Christine Lahti, no?

Estimates vary, but between 750,000 people and upwards of a million marched in the March for Women's Lives in Washington today.

Shades of 1969....

The biggest demonstration was an anti-Vietnam War rally in 1969, which drew 600,000.

What a great sight.

Here are quotes from the rally. Lots of pictures here.

Update: The numbers are now at 1,150,000.

For those of you interested in the religion debate that's sweeping the blogosphere, we'll lay out the sides so everyone can weigh in. Atrios, of the most popular liberal blog, Eschaton, started if off with this post.

Following up with support or explanations of what he said is Tristero, who weighs in with Politics is One Thing, Religion Another and Patriot Boy.

Taking another point of view is Kevin Drum at Political Animal. Kevin also has an addendum with links to other bloggers weighing in on the issue. Also see, Patrick Nielsen Hayden of Electrolite. Jeanne of Body and Soul weighs in via letter to Atrios.

Those critical of Atrios' view include Melanie at Bump in the Beltway , Amy Sullivan , Magpie at Pacific Views , and Chuck Corrie.

We'll wrap up with Atrios's clarification and response here.

We'll start this open thread on The March for Women's Lives with the words of Jeanne D'Arc of Body and Soul:

....I also know that hardcore opposition to abortion (especially when combined with opposition to contraception) and a belief in the "rights" of fetuses kills women. And I'm tired of the word "pro-life" being hijacked by people with women's blood on their hands.

If you can spare some money, we recommend a donation to Planned Parenthood.

Britain is becoming a dangerous place for those concerned about civil liberties. First off, national ID card trials go into effect this week. The proposed penalty for a violation in ten years in jail. Here's more on that.

The Muslim community is concerned about profiling. The Government has agreed to exempt thousands of Muslim women from the photograph requirement.

The cards will cost £35 or between £70 and £80 for one combined with a driving licence or passport. They will contain name, age and date and will be linked to a national database which will contain information on criminal records, health details and social security information.

Civil liberties groups are set to condemn the proposals, which they say will put more power in the hands of the state and are likely to be technically unworkable. 'The public have serious and understandable concerns that the Government will simply not be able to handle the data they will be attempting to collect,' said Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty.

The Earl of Selborne, chairman of the Royal Society's influential science in society committee, said that the public should be aware of the dangers of ID cards. 'There has been a lack of public debate and there is a very real danger that we are sleepwalking into our technological future,' he said. 'But what if the cards also held data about our genetic disposition to specific diseases, or revealed information about our lifestyles that affect health, such as how much we are overweight or how much alcohol we are drinking, updated daily. 'These are technically possible in the future, so we should be discussing whether they are desirable.'

And then, check out these stories.....Britain is institituting a program under which gamblers will face addiction checks. And one town in Britain has decided to interrogate asylum seekers so as to prevent them from settling there.

Atrios has a post on religion. In a nutshell, Atrios says:

I'm a bit fed up with people hand-wringing about anti-religious sentiment from "the Left." First of all, "the Left" which has any clout or power in this country is explicitly "pro-religion" to a degree which disturbs me.

We're also disturbed by the increased import of religion into today's culture and politics. Specifically, here's what we're pondering. The Hamtramck, Michigan City Council has given preliminary approval to a resolution that would allow mosques to broadcast muslim calls to prayers over loudspeakers five times a day--so long as none were broadcast before 6am or after 10pm.

The controversy centered on noise pollution and religious freedom and tolerance. Those opposed to the measure said they didn't want Islamic beliefs imposed upon them. The prayer, which is in Arabic, occurs five times a day between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Supporters said the issue is an Islamic tradition. They cited the city's church bells, which ring at least every hour, as comparable.

The the Al-Islah Islamic Center says Michigan is just the first--and certainly won't be the last city to adopt their request.

This got us to thinking. Why do we have to listen any religious messages, whether it be "Allah is Great" or a Christian message when we are outdoors? What gives these groups the right to intrude on our listening space? What ever happened to honoring peace and quiet and having the oppportunity to be lost in one's own thoughts?

Think of how many times you've wanted to strangle the person next to you on the bus or train or plane who was talking loudly about nothing into their cell phone while you wanted to read your book in quiet. Or at a restaurant. Or on a mountain hike. Or on a chairlift.

To us, the issue isn't religion at all. It's freedom in our own airspace. Airspace is public. Why should anyone have the right to repeatedly make a sound so loud it can be heard by everyone within 1,000 yards? What if everyone decides to do it?

But, since the topic is religious noises--bells and calls to Allah, all of a sudden we have to be more polite and tread more carefully so as not to step on any one religion's freedom of choice. We're not happy about it. We think the answer is that no religion should be broadcasting through speakers into the public domain in a way that forces others to hear about their religion.

We hope Sunday will be the "Million Women March" when women from around the nation and 53 countries converge in Washington, DC to protest the Bush Administration's infringement of women's rights. They will march to uphold Choice, Justice, Access, Health, Abortion, Global and Family Planning. You can get up to the minute details here.

Assembly for the morning rally will begin at 10:00 AM, on the national mall between the Smithsonian museums (between 3rd St. and 14th). There will be a morning stage with entertainment and speakers, from 10:00 - 12:00 or so, and the march will step off at noon. After marching on Washington, a rally will be held from approximately 1:00 - 4:00 PM, with an afternoon stage on the National Mall. Special seating will be available for people with disabilities. The rally program will be interpreted in American Sign Language. The route is wheelchair accessible and transportation will be provided for those who cannot negotiate the route.

On Saturday afternoon there will be a Rally Around the White House:

4:00 p.m., Saturday, April 24
Lafayette Park (H Street, NW, north of White House)

A demonstration to call on the United States to lift dangerous policies that put extreme political agendas before the health and rights of women worldwide. The March for Women’s Lives is about reproductive freedom and justice for ALL women. Currently U.S. policies are undermining the health and rights of women internationally as well as in the United States.

• Congress and the Bush administration claim to believe in human rights, but they have gagged organizations helping women worldwide.
• Congress and Bush administration claim to be guided by compassion, but they have defunded basic health and reproductive services for the poorest women in the poorest countries.

An immigration judge refused asylum and ordered Maria Suarez deported to Mexico. She will appeal.

Along with Planned Parenthood, the ACLU is taking a lead role in the Women's Rights March this Sunday in Washington, D.C. They have launched a tv ad for the occasion, which prominently features Attorney General John Ashcroft. You can watch it online here. The National Journal (subscription only) describes it this way:

The American Civil Liberties Union hit airwaves this week with a TV ad promoting Sunday's March for Women's Lives. The 30-second spot begins with scenes of women staring into the camera and includes a photograph of Attorney General John Ashcroft as an announcer says, "You have to stop this man." Reasons -- "discrimination," "opposes medically necessary abortions," "opposes birth control" -- flash across the screen. The spot concludes with an enjoinder to attend the march, as the announcer says, "Don't just sit there and take it.

There will be a abortion womens' rights march this Sunday in Washington, sponsored by Planned Parenthood. It begins at the National Mall. We hope you'll be there. More information is available here--or click on this ad on the right side of TalkLeft.

The March for Women's Lives on April 25, 2004, promises to be one of the largest public demonstrations in support of reproductive freedom in history. We are organizing diverse delegations from around the world and we invite you to join us. If you're pro-choice, pro-privacy and pro-family, the March for Women's Lives is about you. Join us, as we demand reproductive and social justice for women at home and abroad.

Hundreds of thousands are expected to participate. The New York Times has this report. More reports here and here. Molly Ivins is here.

by TChris

Freedom of association is great for the Elks or the Knights of Columbus, but when young men want to hang out together in suburban Chicago, they'd better not give themselves a group name like "Satan Disciples."

A DuPage County judge on Monday banned more than a dozen members of a west suburban gang from hanging out with each other in a landmark Illinois decision that law enforcement officials said gives them a powerful weapon to combat gangs.

Telling people they can't associate with each other publicly is indeed a "powerful weapon," but its destructive force does more damage to the Constitution than to undesirable gang behavior.

Instapundit brings up a good point today. National ID cards will not make us safer. As we said here:

It's a quick fix that won't do anything to stop terrorists or enhance our safety. It will only further diminish our privacy rights.