Politics | 05/31/2009 11:00 pm
Pro-Life Feminism Births a Great – and Inexhaustible – Debate

There was a time when right-leaning groups decried the proverbial “specter” of feminism. But now, 40 years after Gloria Steinem broke onto the feminist scene, an entirely different group of women are reclaiming the F word: “the pro-life feminists.” These women claim that the better-known feminists have perverted the term and, as a consequence, glorified abortion. Opponents of “pro-life feminism,” meanwhile, have equally harsh words for the movement – and its moniker.
“[Pro-life feminism] is a bit of an oxymoron,” says Ellen Malcolm, the IBM heiress who founded Emily’s List, a political machine designed to elect pro-choice female lawmakers. “To say that women should be able to make decisions about their own lives, except when it comes to their bodies — that seems contradictory to me.”
True, it’s hard for some people to comprehend the pro-life feminist camp, but that doesn’t make them any less real. In fact, many of its adherents claim the movement started far before the first woman burned her bra. It can be traced, they say, back to the legendary suffragette, Susan B. Anthony.
Two Steps Back, One Step Forward?
On July 8, 1869, a paper called The Revolution, which was founded by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Anthony, published an article entitled “Marriage and Maternity,” in which the author, known only as "A," describes abortion as “child murder.” The act is not simply a sin, it’s a symptom of the “noxious weed” that is patriarchal domination:
Women are educated to think that with marriage their individuality ceases or is transferred to their husbands. The wife has thenceforth no right over her own body. This is also the husband’s belief, and upon which he acts … It is clear to my mind that this evil wholly arises from the false position which woman occupies in civilized society.
Anthony had in fact spoken out against abortion – as exhibited in her oft-quoted speech, “Social Purity,” which equates abortion with infanticide – but Salon’s Tracy Clark-Flory points out that there’s no direct evidence to prove Anthony indeed wrote this piece. Regardless of the identity of "A," today’s pro-life feminists often invoke Anthony’s name in their crusade against abortion.
In 1992, former Heritage Foundation staff member Marjorie Dannenfelser founded a group called the Susan B. Anthony List as "an answer to Emily’s List." "It was very clear to me that if we wanted to have pro-life women in public office we were going to have to build a political machine to make that happen," explained Dannenfelser. While Dannenfelser’s group, which boasts a membership of 158,000, works mostly with Republicans – they gave $234,002 to 35 candidates during the last election cycle – the Susan B. Anthony List describes itself as nonpartisan and has in the past worked with a handful of Democrats, including late Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker-Knoll. Though the group claims it’s working to “advance the role of pro-life women in the political process,” the List does at times help men who have opposed pro-choice women.
Some, of course, could argue that funding men over women undermines their female-centric mission, but Dannenfelser disagrees: “I believe that the life issue so undermines women … I couldn’t, in good conscience, support a woman that I thought was undermining the health, welfare and happiness of other women, because that is truly how I see it.” Ellen Malcolm, the founder of Emily’s List, sees their approach quite differently: “They want to keep progressive women out of Congress and elected office, and I think they have a very Republican Conservative agenda.”
While Dannenfelser, who grew up Episcopalian and points out that she was once pro-choice, insists she’s turned off by the violence inherent in abortion, another pro-life activist, Jenn Giroux, and her “Women Influencing the Nation” approach the argument with more piety.























317 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
when a woman brings a baby to term that late, it is not that she simply FORGOT to schedule her abortion - these women WANTED THEIR BABIES - and unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately!) we have science that helps us recognize when a fetus will have a horrible abnormality.
YOU have no right to look into another persons’ family planning. if that baby had been very retarded or physically handicapped there is no guarantee that someone could look after them for the entirety of their lives.
Oh my god…………..are you saying republicans have never had an abortion.
I find it hard to believe you just made such a stupid statement……….I want you to note……………I did not call you stupid. I said you made a stupid statement.
Yes, some people use abortion as birth control and I personally disagree with their decision. However, the alternative to safe legal abortion is unsafe illegal abortion, not lack of abortions.
LL…I have read over your posts and first, you know me, and I dont try to take anyone’s opinions away from them…but on this subject we dont know for sure unless they open Dr. Tiller’s files what kind of late term abortions he was performing. He had been doing this for several years and there may have been some that got past the legal system and was used for birth control but I would like to believe that the majority of them were for mothers who would not have survived pregnancy or babies that would not have lived very long outside of the womb & would have suffered those few secons, minutes, hours…
I can only speak for me and to make a decision that late in pregnancy can not be easy for most women, now we know that there are some sick a$$ people in this world but I can’t speak for them either.
I hope your didnt take any of my posts to you as attacking your opinions b/c I do value yours and Deber B.
While we probably will never know what slipped under the radar in Kansas, everyone needs to remember that in that state it is legal to abort, even if the fetus is determined to be viable after 21 weeks. A doctor may still perform an abortion if he and another physician determine that the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
It should also be noted that Tiller was recently acquitted of 19 charges that he had performed illegal late-term abortions. Granted, the Medical Board planned to bring him up on 11 other issues.
(statute 65-6721):
(a) No person shall perform or induce a partial birth abortion on a viable fetus unless such person is a physician and has a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and both physicians determine: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major physical or mental function of the pregnant woman.
(b) As used in this section:
(1) "Partial birth abortion" means an abortion procedure which includes the deliberate and intentional evacuation of all or a part of the intracranial contents of a viable fetus prior to removal of such otherwise intact fetus from the body of the pregnant woman.
(2) "Partial birth abortion" shall not include the: (A) Suction curettage abortion procedure; (B) suction aspiration abortion procedure; or (C) dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the pregnant woman.
(c) If a physician determines in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) that a partial birth abortion is necessary and performs a partial birth abortion on the woman, the physician shall report such determination and the reasons for such determination in writing to the medical care facility in which the abortion is performed for inclusion in the report of the medical care facility to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto or if the abortion is not performed in a medical care facility, the physician shall report the reasons for such determination in writing to the secretary of health and environment as part of the written report made by the physician to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto. The physician shall retain a copy of the written reports required under this subsection for not less than five years.
(d) A woman upon whom an abortion is performed shall not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3302, and amendments thereto.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a right to an abortion. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, a person shall not perform an abortion that is prohibited by law.
(f) Upon conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be guilty of a severity level 10 person felony.
Let me state clearly that I am pro-choice. The government, in my not so humble opinion, has no right telling me what I can or cannot do with my body.
I believe the cold-blooded killing of Tiller was cowardly.
…what I can or cannot do with my body.
The government cannot, to a large degree, tell you what you or I can or cannot do with our bodies. The government can tell you to stop when the exercise of your rights infringes upon the rights of someone else. And therein lies the problem. At what point does a mass of tissue become a living entity, and entitled to the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? When the cells first begin to divide? When the heart starts to pump? When the brain starts to function? When it first begins to move of its own accord? When it is developed enough to survive outside the womb? When it has two eyes, four limbs, and twenty digits?
Until we can clearly, certainly, and concretely answer that question, abortion will never truly be an issue of doing what one desires with one’s own body.
Cherry picking data from cherry picked cases is not a good way to make a thorough and unbiased analysis. For instance, people with gross physical defects such an extra arm often have other defects as well. Since many americans exist a single medical emergency away from poverty, it is not surprising that a person would make this choice. Looking at a picture does not give us a complete medical explanation of the situation, nor does it give us any information on the life and ability of the mother to deal with situation.
In Kansas it is required that a second independent doctor verify that a late term abortion is medically necessary. So, for all of these cases, Dr. Tiller’s opinion was seconded by another source. This definitely lowers the probability that any of these abortions were done "just because".