Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 05/31/2009 11:00 pm

Pro-Life Feminism Births a Great – and Inexhaustible – Debate

The rise of ‘pro-life feminism’ raises endless questions on the real meaning of the F word.
By Andrew Belonsky
© Getty Images

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

Libra Lady

Marjorie….that is laughable…just because Bill O expressed his opinion, does not make him a murderer….that is absurd!!!  But I guess you have to blame someone….just plain ignorant!!

By Libra Lady on 06/01/2009 10:54 am
S G
Libra he promotes hate and violence. He was the one ranting on this doctor. If you want to promote hate and violence you should be held accountable.
By S G on 06/01/2009 10:58 am
Libra Lady
S G….if you have to hold Bill O accountable…then think of all the accusations you can make of movie producers who make violent movies, video games, rapper songs who promote abusing women, record labels whose songs have promoted suicides in their lyrics.  I could go on and on….every nightly news commentator could be charged with what they express on their show…such as all the hate that was spewed against the Tea Party Protesters, what would of happened if something keith o or rachel m commented on could have angered some nutcase to grab a gun or drive his/her car into the protesters…the responsibility has to come from the killer….
By Libra Lady on 06/01/2009 11:30 am
S G
Libra we will have to agree to disagree.
By S G on 06/01/2009 11:46 am
Libra Lady
So then you are saying only what Bill O says should be held accountable?  Other news commentators are off the hook then if something should happen!  I don’t think I understand, but then yes, we will have to agree to disagree…have a nice day.
By Libra Lady on 06/01/2009 11:58 am
S G
Libra as I said anyone who promotes hate and violence should be held accountable. Have a good day too:)
By S G on 06/01/2009 12:01 pm
Marjorie C.

Libra:  the responsibility has to come from the killer….

Amen.

By Marjorie C. on 06/01/2009 11:47 am
Frannie Em

Libra you make a good point.  When you truly think about it, it seem that nowadays we are such a talk show and popular culture driven nation, and many people say anything they want about almost anyone - that being the case, then we should all be held responsible for the heinous acts of others?  

I think S G is saying that anyone who promotes anger and violence is wrong and I agree with that as well.  This murderer of Dr Tiller was some crazy nut on a misguided mission of his own.  I find it all appalling.

By Frannie Em on 06/01/2009 3:43 pm
MK P
Quite honestly, Frannie Em — I believe the people who tune in to listen to these ranting talking heads have a responsibility when these types of heinous acts are committed.   As long as people tune in (even if only for entertainmnet) to listen to their incendiary commentary — they will continue to prey on the easily influenced.
By MK P on 06/01/2009 4:02 pm
Frannie Em

MK

I have listened to them and they are not all incendiary.  They pick an issue that they stick with and slowly try to get opinion to go their way, but I wouldn’t call that incendiary.  There were bloggers during the election that wanted Sarah Palin hurt because she was a hunter.  It was repeated and repeated all over the internet and on some very popular political sites.  Isn’t that incendiary.  Although I don’t agree with hunting, I also don’t agree with threatening others.  

It seems an easy target to pick a news commentator to blame for something in our society that has gone awry.  That just seems to simple for me and sprinkled with a little conspiracy theory reasoning.  I don’t watch O’Reilly every night, but I do watch him, and I switch between him and Rachel Maddow - both of them make me mad at times but they both make intelligent and valid points about social and political issues. Go figure.  Anyway, O’Reilly has stuck to his issue of being against late term abortions, but I do not believe he would ever agree with or promote the act of murder.  His push was always to get laws changed and make people aware of what was happening.  

I think it is more incendiary for our society if we  to start to "Big Brother" the news outlets and decide they are in a conspiracy with homegrown "lone wolves".  I am more concerned with an attitude that "anything goes" to achieve the end of your goals. Killing Dr. Tiller will not end late term abortions, it will only make things worse.  The gaps will only get wider and resentment will grow deeper in a nation that needs to come together and work to save our economy. 

By Frannie Em on 06/01/2009 5:00 pm
Frannie Em
P.S - I don’t watch Glenn Beck or Hannity because they are too nutsy for me or too conservative, but only get half the stories that are out there that affect us through the regular media - so where do you turn?
By Frannie Em on 06/01/2009 5:02 pm
MK P
Personally, I like to watch Maddow because she at least tries to present a balanced view without ever trying to whip people up into some kind of rabid frenzy. I have no respect for O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et al — and little patience for those who encourage their diatribes by tunning in to them.
By MK P on 06/01/2009 7:52 pm
Frannie Em
To me it seems Maddow gets kind of snarky sarcastic like a know it all college student - when she gets that way I feel she is doing a disservice to herself.  She drives the story exactly the way she wants to with whatever tint or lean she wants on it.  I would not call either of them balanced.  They have a way of presenting it the way they see it.  Both can be very fair at times, but many times not fair as well depending on their politics.  I think she is more left and enjoys it while O’Reilly is more to the right but tries to be in the middle, sometimes he makes it and sometimes he tries too hard.
By Frannie Em on 06/01/2009 9:57 pm
MK P
I tend to agree with her on most things — if I didn’t agree with her, I am sure I would think her sarcasm was snarky. =) But, at least Maddow doesn’t produce a hit list of individual citizens with whom she does not agree.
By MK P on 06/02/2009 6:24 am
S G
MK P and frannie. Did you see the guy on Rachel Maddow that apologized for his part in helping start this crazy mess? He took responsibility for things he had done. He also said it was time O’reily and others took the blame they deserve.
By S G on 06/02/2009 7:28 am