Oct 2

Oct 2 Abortion Rights

I left the house today with some trepidation: The morning edition of the New York Times reported that the organizers of the nationwide march for abortion rights were trying to regain momentum, carrying the clear implication that the organizers weren’t sure whether the rallies scheduled throughout the nation would generate huge numbers. In Chicago, would that mean only a couple hundred in Daley Plaza at the 11:30 AM-appointed time? Given that only 30 to 40 people showed up in Grant Park for a rally immediately following the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the Texas law effectively banning abortion, I had good reason to wonder. From a photographer’s standpoint, there is nothing worse than a poorly attended demonstration, an observation that was validated for me twice this past summer.

Setting the Stage: At the end of the day, a photographer is only an intermediary. What matters is how the resulting images affect the intended audience. While today’s ostensible ultimate national audience is the usual one—online readers and television viewers—in my judgment, there was in actuality just one: Chief Justice John Roberts. Although Roberts is a conservative, lately he appears to be more concerned with the Court’s institutional reputation than deciding cases in accord with his conservative judicial philosophy.

Given that goal, only attendance at the levels achieved for the First Women’s March in 2017 would give Roberts additional leverage during deliberations with his conservative colleagues once the Court hears the December 1 oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the Mississippi abortion case that raises the issue whether it is constitutionally permissible to ban abortions after 15 weeks.

Granted, even small demonstrations serve a variety of purposes: The organizers collect names, new adherents are brought into the fold, money is raised, conversations take place, new ideas percolate, and adherents feel solidarity with like-minded people. Nevertheless, the visuals that come out of the event are of primary importance. Do you remember the speeches accompanying the student and worker strikes in Paris during the 1968 demonstrations? Probably not, but you have seen Bruno Barbey’s, René Burri’s, and Jacques Marie’s images. The same holds true for the 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Prague. We remember Josef Koudelka’s images; not speeches made in the streets.

Of more recent vintage, do you remember the attendance numbers from Trump’s inauguration or what he said (outside of “American carnage”)? Probably not, but you do remember the images of the Mall, particularly when compared to the images from President Obama’s inauguration. Pictures don’t lie, although Trump tried his best to change that, following in the footsteps of Pravda and other publications controlled by authoritarian regimes.

The Numbers: I arrived at Daley Plaza about 45-minutes before the speeches were scheduled to begin. It was not looking good. Clusters of people milled about, but the large spaces separating them were what made an impression. I nevertheless raised one of my three cameras to my eye, focusing on people assembling banners, stacks of signs, and small groups of people chatting.

The good news: About three hours later, I was standing on the LaSalle/Van Buren “L” platform with ten or so other photographers as the marchers past below. One photojournalist estimated that there were somewhere around 5,000 people in Daley Plaza at the rally’s peak. That was consistent with my estimate while standing in front of the stage looking out at Picasso’s gift to the people of Chicago. But as I saw the marchers walk under the ‘‘L” platform as I stood above, I lowered my estimate to 3,000 or 4,000.

Today’s march was definitely not an embarrassment, but the organizers did not put the sort of numbers on the board that would have provided Chief Justice Roberts with potent ammunition should he once again decide that the Court’s institutional reputation is more important than a particular outcome, with the result that stare decisis prevails. Of course, I am no more a fan of that sort of judicial approach than I am of judicial legislating, but realpolitik is sometimes a necessity. The first Women’s March brought an estimated 300,000 people to Grant Park, which puts into question whether today’s numbers will provide Roberts with sufficient backbone and motivation.

The Speeches: As is typical, there were far too many speeches during the 90-minute allotted time, but that is not surprising given the number of groups involved in the mobilization. I thought the woman who gave the religious innovation was a particularly inspired speaker. The other speaker of note was Dr. Amy Whitaker, Planned Parenthood of Illinois’ chief medical officer. She said she loved performing abortions. I knew what she meant, but it struck me as a bit in artful given the circumstances that often lead to the need for an abortion. Let’s keep the right to abortion, but hope that there is no need for them.

On the other hand, Dr. Whitaker’s story about a Texas college student who traveled to Illinois for an abortion just days after the Texas ban went into effect was chilling. The student was overjoyed that she had the resources and opportunity to make the trip, but was distressed by the other young women in the Texas clinic who wept when they realized that they could not obtain an abortion in Texas. Unlike the fortunate student, they did not have the resources to travel to a state where the procedure was still legal. What were they going to do?

The other speakers were largely from left-leaning groups. Their rhetoric was more didactic than fiery, generating occasional, but not thunderous reaction from the assembled crowd.

Counter Demonstrators: The rally’s website advised participants not to engage with the counter-demonstrators who would surely be present. To my surprise, there were only two or three visible pro-lifers present before the speeches began, and maybe seven or eight bringing up the rear during the march.

More to my surprise, the pro-lifers exhibited far more equanimity than those rally participants who chose to ignore the warning against engagement. The police served as a barrier between the two viewpoints, reminding both factions that the First Amendment protected all expression.

To be clear: Most of the rally participants ignored the pro-choice counter demonstrators, but there were several who, moth-like, were drawn to the flame. I saw one woman step between her husband and the police, serving as a human barrier, pushing him back. While it is only a suspicion, had there been more counter demonstrators, there might have been a violent confrontation. Those abortion rights advocates who chose to engage were often agitated. The police officers assigned to keep the two groups apart were more attentive than the police normally are during other Saturday morning Loop rallies. They looked nervous.

The Kids: More than a few parents brought their children to the rally. Everyone should appreciate the effort by parents to inculcate the importance of civic engagement in their children. On the other hand, I am always skeptical when I see a nine- or ten-year holding a sign at a political rally. Does the kid really believe in the cause? Has he or she weighed the issues after careful review of the facts, or is he or she just parroting what is said around the kitchen table? I am sensitive to this issue because my parents engaged in attempted brainwashing throughout my youth—to the point where teachers called home, telling my parents they had a smart kid who should be allowed to form his own views.

A Note to Organizers: Having now attended dozens of rallies and marches, I have a few suggestions for the organizers. First, ban the use of smartphones from the speakers’ stage or platform. Checking your Facebook feed while the speaker is trying to rally the crowd doesn’t make for a powerful image. By way of example, two weeks ago, two flag carriers mounted a column in New York City’s Columbus Circle during a pro-Palestinian rally. That was the photo-op: The 59th skyline with the green, black and red flag flying above the crowd below. Yet, one of the two flag-bearers was looking at his smartphone the entire time—was he checking his Twitter feed or swiping left on some dating website? If I were king, I would extend the ban to all participants, but that isn’t going to happen. The fact, however, that the thought crosses my mind raises a serious question regarding the commitment of many who attend rallies and marches. Apparently the speakers aren’t charismatic; if they were, people would be listening rather than checking their text messages.

Second, if you have a media tent, provide the media with a handout listing the names and affiliation of the speakers. I remember what people say, but I don't always remember the names, particularly when there are twenty or more speakers.

Third, risers for the media would be helpful. It is very difficult to obtain visually-arresting crowd reaction shots standing at grade.

Click on an Image to Enlarge It