LETTER TO THE EDITOR
I would like to know why the Record Observer chose to portray local involvement in last weekend’s Women’s March on the front page over local involvement in the presidential inauguration, which was found on page 16. It was disappointing to see the paper go so far as to display a picture on the front page showing women holding signs with offensive obscenities and anti-presidential slogans. Regardless of political beliefs, is there no respect for the office of president, or patriotism, or even common decency? As if this were not pointed enough, the editorial titled “Two very different demonstrations” found on page 6 indicated further support for the Women’s March by the Record Observer.
I am a 28 year old woman who attended another demonstration which took place in Washington D.C. on Friday the 27th along with hundreds of thousands in attendance. Believe it or not, there are many women like myself who march not for themselves, but for others — for rights for the unborn, for support for mothers facing unplanned pregnancies, and for the elderly. We march for men and women of all backgrounds. The March for Life is well organized, peaceful, and has been taking place for 44 years. It is inclusive, open to anyone regardless of political party or religious background. I have attended this event for nine years and have never seen obscenities or violence at this event, unlike the direct attacks made on the president by the speakers at the Women’s March.
I also had the honor of hearing Vice President and Second Lady Pence speak at the pre-march rally. In the Vice President’s words, “life is winning. Let this movement be known for love, not anger. Let this movement be known for compassion, not confrontation.” Unfortunately, the impact of the March for Life and this movement of love is not well known because the media chooses not to cover it.
I understand the paper ser ves a diverse population. However, we are all Americans, and the presidential inauguration was an event for all Americans, regardless of political affiliation. It is disappointing to see our local paper intent on displaying an agenda of confrontation that not all its readers agree with.