Your "Pro-Life" Avatar.

Can't make it to Washington today for the annual March for Life? No worries, create your own avatar and march alongside Sarah Palin's avatar! Incredible. The virtual March for Life.

Tomorrow thousands are expected to rally along Constitution Avenue, stopping at the Hill and the Supreme Court during the 37th annual March for Life, held each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This year’s march has a digital twist: those who can’t make it to Washington can still join in – virtually.

There, you can create an avatar and march with the likes of Sarah Palin, Michael Steel and Jon Boehner. – see their avatars here.

The March For Life organizers will hold a rally outside of the White House tonight in Lafayette Park. No word on how many are expected to attend, though the group says they are permitted for 3,000. The group is hoping to catch the attention of President Barack Obama, who supports reproductive rights.

President George W. Bush was out of town every year the march took place and never attended the rally in person, but did call the marchers to voice his support. Presidents Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush also addressed the marchers by telephone. President Reagan use his radio address in 1983 to affirm his opposition to abortion.

GRITtv Segment on the Anniversary of Roe v Wade

The segment perfectly addresses the challenges faced by women now, 37 years after the passage of Roe v Wade.

ADF Says It's Time to Revisit Roe v Wade.

The Aliance Defense Fund, those purveyors of Truth (with a capital T), today put out an abstract on Alliance Alert that asks the Supreme Court to finish what they started with Roe v. Wade: to decide on the 'personhood' of a fetus. A number of other "pro-life" sites have picked up the post.

Imagining what would happen if the Supreme Court did revisit the case gives me the shivers. Many of us write all the time that, for instance, the USCCB's muscling on health care reform is imposition of religious ideology on the rest of us, a violation of the separation of church and state. And we know that "pro-life" groups have one main objective, to make abortion (under the broadest definition) illegal. We witness their determination and power daily.

Maybe it's a naive question regarding an event unlikely to happen, but what would happen if the Supreme Court were asked to determine when life begins? What decision would guarantee women's rights without all this continual chipping away of access?

The last paragraph of the abstract reads:

However, the Court’s analysis is problematic, because Establishment Clause principles are consistent with governmental protection of fetal life. The humanity of the fetus can be plausibly supported, not only on religious grounds, but also on the secular grounds of philosophical, historical, and experiential reasoning. To be clear, I do not argue that these secular grounds prove beyond dispute that fetuses are human beings. Instead, I defend the more modest proposition that a debatable secular case can be made for viewing fetuses as human beings. This conclusion is not strong enough to justify criminalization or restriction of abortion (which is beyond the scope of this Article), but it does prove that such criminalization or restriction would not violate the Establishment Clause. Thus, the Court should revisit the fundamental question that it evaded in Roe and later cases: is the fetus a human being, such that legislatures have a compelling interest in protecting fetal life against abortion?