My two friends and I joked that among the reasons we were grateful for each other's company at the March for Women's Lives was our mutual understanding that we were allowed to complain about the discomfort of spending 24 out of 36 hours on a bus. After our first 12 bus hours on the way to D.C. and another 12 marching alongside several hundred thousand -- or over a million, depending on what source you trust -- other women, men and children fighting for the same issues in which we passionately believe; after having been swept up in the intense emotion of the march and rally, having seen the immense diversity of our fellow marchers -- all ages, genders, religions, political affiliations, having cheered wildly as Gloria Steinem proudly told us that over a third of the crowd was women under 25; and after swelling with pride as speaker after speaker informed us we were participants in the largest march in U.S. history, we faced 12 more hours of discomfort, significantly lessened by our reflections of the day.
Monday, as I excitedly, and perhaps naively, searched newspapers for reporting that would accurately describe the event as I had experienced it, I felt a wave of oncoming complaints. Though several papers devoted a portion of their front page to the march, I found the headlines and descriptions biased and dismissive. My elation at having participated in what felt to those of us present like a truly historical event was replaced with a burdensome sense of disillusionment. Each said roughly the same things. Each fell spectacularly short of expectations.
Then I ran into a friend. Responding to his "How are you?" inquiry with a much longer and intense response than he probably expected, I expounded upon my growing infuriation over the coverage of the march. Though he was quick to point out the front pages of nearby papers, I argued back that the reporting to which he was referring was precisely what had me so upset. He then, in a kind, though perhaps misguided, attempt to make me feel better suggested I was taking it all too personally.
Taking it too personally? Considering that it was a march to defend women's rights, to protect women's health, to ensure that women of our generation never have to choose between a wire hanger and an unwanted pregnancy, how else could I take it?
I'm hesitant even to mention abortion, because that seems to be the only issue in which the media has any interest. Though I was disappointed by the underestimations of the crowd's size, I understand that different counts do exist. Referring to the march as a big abortion rally, however, is a misrepresentation of truth, a dismissal of the greater message. Granted, anti-Bush administration sentiment was present, and the majority of the demonstrators were pro-choice. But this march was about so much more. People must understand and remember the real issues.
The term "abortion rally," used by almost every newspaper in coverage of the march, implies a pro-abortion agenda. What is vital to realize though, is that this was not a rally encouraging abortions. Fewer abortions is a goal of those who organized and we who marched. We simply refuse to compromise the civil rights of women in order to achieve that goal. The March for Women's Lives was about demanding that women be granted their basic human rights globally and that those rights be protected. It was about women's access to health care, education, family planning and contraceptives.
Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Rather, pro-choice is pro-life. It is in defense of women's lives. We support every woman's right as a human being to make decisions regarding her health and her body. These are the things for which we marched, things women deserve. And this is what must be understood amid the biased reporting and dismissive attitudes.
As upset as I still am, I've grown tired of complaining. Talking to my friends and family might calm me down, but it won't help the women around the world who suffer every day. It won't help the women in this country, all of whom are in danger of losing their basic civil rights by legislation written and passed by men whose choices will never be directly affected by it. By expressing my frustrations to a wider audience I'm hoping to foster a better understanding of my opinions, and those of Sunday's participants. It's easy to disagree with people you see as representative of morally reprehensible views. I believe that our fight, understood for what it truly is -- the fight for freedom of choice, for human rights -- is more difficult to oppose.