2014 Roe v. Wade Commemoration

Join the Santa Barbara Pro-Choice Coalition in commemorating 41 years since the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.

When: Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014, 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.

Where: Louise Lowry Davis Ctr., 1232 De la Vina St., Santa Barbara

Cost: $15

Age limit: 16+

Categories: Social: Meetings


Join the Santa Barbara Pro-Choice Coalition in commemorating 41 years since the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade confirms every woman's right to privacy and the right to make her own personal medical decisions, including access top a safe and legal abortion. This year's commemoration will feature a screening of the critically acclaimed documentary, After Tiller.

After Tiller is an intimate and heartfelt look at the lives and work of the only four doctors who legally perform third-trimester abortions in the US. All four doctors were friends of the late Dr. George Tiller, who was publicly assassinated in 2009. The film brings emotional sensitivity to a highly politicized issue through the real experiences of these physicians and the women who seek their care.

$15 at-the door; limited scholarships available, please call prior to event.
RSVP to SB PCC Coordinator, Gina at 805-899-9814/
Light appetizers served 5:30-6:00pm, screening 6:00-7:30pm followed by Q&A with filmmaker Martha Shane

The Santa Barbara Pro-Choice Coalition's mission is to facilitate education and local action on reproductive health and justice issues. The SB PCC hosts events educating the public about reproductive rights and the current fight to ensure those rights. Find us on

*Movie is PG13

Phone: 805-899-9814

Event posted Jan. 13, 2014
Last updated Jan. 13, 2014


Independent Discussion Guidelines

55 million dead babies since Roe vs. Wade - this is a reason to celebrate? Do not call this a woman's issue. Call it if you must, a men's issue. But primarily it is a tragedy of national consequence and conscience. No one gender should be labeled as responsible for this degree of genocide.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 23, 2014 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jeez man get over yourself. You should spend less time blogging and more time at the actor's studio.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 23, 2014 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr. Tiller stood up, and was gunned down by myopic haters; we need more heroic Americans like him. Oh, and the first poster here...well, you know, enjoy his sweet comment!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@foofighter: "Call it if you must, a men's issue."

By men's issue, you must mean it's a 'men not knowing when to mind their own damned business' issue.

And please stop pretending you care about children. You don't, and no one is fooled into believing you do.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The one thing I hate about many (social) conservatives is they want to force these unwanted children into the world, then they complain that the government has to pay to support, educate and imprison them.

As far as I'm concerned, birth control and abortion services are the ONLY health care government should provide free of charge.

Botany (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bravo Botany, ETR. The Social Conservatives love you til the umbilical cord is cut; then it's nothing but hatred and hypocrisy.
How well do you think Fancypants Francisco is going to do in the primary?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Abortion is another "South Park" issue where one side of the argument is right for the wrong reasons (pro-choice), and the other side is wrong for the right reasons (pro-life).

The left claims that it should be a woman's right to choose what to do with her body in all cases, and I can agree with that, but isn't the woman in fact taking away the baby's choice to live when she commits an abortion? At what point does a fetus gain enough human qualities where we should treat them like one? These are difficult questions to answer and I don't know if anybody has the "right" answer to them. It sounds like each individual should consult with their partner, family, friends and medical or religious leaders and decide what they think for themselves.

When the state enforces anti-abortion laws it simply drives the market underground and makes it more dangerous for women to have an abortion as they will often be able to seek one out anyway.

Pro-life proponents will argue that we should protect the fetus's life like a human life, but the problem is at the extremes that requires state intrusion into the private life of the woman. Women's privacy should absolutely protected especially when it comes to maternity. The last thing I think anybody wants to see is a woman under investigation for a miscarriage. Can you imagine how painful that could be?

On the other hand pro-life proponents can make the case that abortion takes away the baby's right to choose and pro-choice proponents an make a valid argument that in the very earliest stages of the pregnancy it is not really a 'baby' or a human yet and maybe we ought to allow women to have easy access to abortions so that they can be performed at the earliest stages. However to some people this is still unacceptable.

In my opinion, the state should exit the matter entirely. It should not prevent NOR PROMOTE abortion, it should not license, restrict or regulate abortion, except for perhaps outlawing very late stage abortions at the state or local level with protections in place for women's privacy and knowing that it will still likely occur anyway. Taking the government out of the issue entirely would bring down the costs so that poor people can afford the safest, cleanest option possible at the earliest time of their pregnancy.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dead babies are dead babies. Nothing to celebrate or encourage. Prevent pregnancies before they occur, yes; but no to genocide in any form. Life begins at conception. Period. Plan your recreational activities with that in mind.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about the genocide being waged on working/middle class people in this country?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about the Reagan-Bush administration's genocide of gay men in the 80s?

Oh St. Ronnie, your feet aren't made of clay- they're made of light and shadow.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We are discussing Roe vs Wade, which on demand specifically and officially sanctions killing live human beings. Narrow your focus to the facts at hand.

The state does sanction killing human beings in self-defense and/or by the military or law enforcement personnel and within the legal justice system after due process, so this is not an unprecedented role for the state to allow the taking of another's life.

Therefore call Roe vs Wade what it is, the constitutionally sanctioned killing of human beings, just like the prior examples.

Why call it a "woman's issue" or a "freedom of choice" issue when in fact it is constitutionally sanctioned genocide. The number of 50 million legally sanctioned killings of human beings in our country deserves recognition at this landmark time; but certainly not celebration.

50 million dead babies is not a woman's issue nor even a freedom of choice because it was not mutually bargained between mother and child - it is 50 million legally sanctioned dead babies. Period.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thankfully you do not get to dictate the parameters of this discussion; and since you brought up officially sanctioned genocide I thought I'd counter your usual rhetoric with some facts about your dear departed Saint Reagan and the fraud of his "legacy".

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder how many of those erstwhile "cowboys" at the Reagan Ranch Center have had abortions or instigated the need for one? Only to shake their fingers at other people.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@foofighter: "It is 50 million legally sanctioned dead babies."

Fetuses are not babies. And either way, to pretend to care about them while you're using them as a means by which to justify taking away the rights of women to have a say over their own bodies... that's about a disingenuous as you can get.

It's a women's health issue. Period.

And let's keep it real - I don't hear you crying about the 16 million children currently living in poverty - because there's no political opportunity in that. Poor kids, to hell with them.

In fact, you wanted MORE poor kids. You're still hoping for your permanent service class, and those 50 million would have provided you with a lot more underprivileged children to help make you feel better about yourself. Gotta' fill up that jail in North County somehow...

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't it time that "Social Conservatives" and Reaganites at least acknowledge the genocides of post-natal individuals that have been come about because of his - and their actions (and inaction?)

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem I have with Foo's argument is this. It requires a determination of when life begins. For most social conservatives, that determination is dictated by their religion. Once social conservatives outlaw abortion, will they be happy? Nope. They'll move on to sodomy, premarital and extramarital sex. Our government is supposed to keep religion out of it. I don't want some bible-thumper telling me how to live my life. We can get that with the Taliban or the Muslim brotherhood.

Keep religion out of government. Religious based governments never do well.

Botany (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, the conclusion life begins at conception is based upon biology. All other definitions are based upon religion.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The state does sanction killing other human beings. The state sanctions killing human beings, though you prefer to call it an "abortion", or "woman's rights" or free choice.

But why not call it what it is: the state sanctioned right to kill another human being..

The death penalty sanctions killing human beings.
Self defense sanctions killing human beings.
Military combat sanctions killing human beings.
Law enforcement personnel are sanctioned to kill human beings.

And now, every woman in the US without cause or justification is now sanctioned to kill a human being. God Bless Roe vs Wade.

Next step are men's rights so they too can kill other human beings, at any time for any reason.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How come you don't care this much about them after they're born?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Point to ponder: Babies have been born at 4 and a half months and survived viably.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 24, 2014 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Dirty Knobs

The Dirty Knobs and The Coffis Brothers & The Mountain ... Read More