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
I am aware Maddow and O’Reilly are not news outlets, but they discuss news.
What would make you think that I would believe that anyone has the right to murder?
MK
It seems to me that right now O’Reilly is your "mark". It is an opinion you have which you have the right to have. What if someone saw your remarks about O’Reilly and felt it was a good reason to take "action" against him? Would you be liable then for some nutcase’s action? I don’t think so, that is the point many are trying to make. What if you were asked who was your next political "mark"? Wouldn’t that be an incendiary promoted by you?
Let’s make this clear, I could care less about O’Reilly, he is nothing to me but a guy on TV that once in a while gets a little time on the tube. I don’t have to defend him but he didn’t do this nor ever suggest it be done. Dr. Tiller has been on the pro-life’s watch list for a long time - long before O’Reilly earned his notoriety. This horrible murder is a tragedy and is only going to make the situation worse, unless we the people don’t let it.
When the left decided it was going to go with Obama - didn’t Hillary become a "mark" of many political blogs and news outlets? What if something had happened to her because of the sexist and hate speech that was all over the internet? Who would be responsible.
My point is, if you want the incendiary comments to stop, then don’t make them. Don’t contribute to that level of awareness because when you do, you add to it you don’t decrease it - you don’t change the world, it only has the same arguments over and over again.
I understand and I know that you are angry and with good reason, I don’t blame you, but the more incendiary we are the worse it gets out in the world.
On another point, this act will set the pro-life movement backwards politically because of some "lone wolf" murderer. This action will always be associated with some of the groups although they had nothing to do with it. This does no one any good.
The fact that you make these comparisons is laughable — Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Pallin work very hard to be on the national news ever night and make very public sensational statements just to get the attention of millions. They draw all the attention onto themselves.
Tiller just wanted to be left alone to do what he had a legal right to do.
Did Hitler break the law in his own country, or did he just want to be left alone to do what he had a legal right to do? If you consider the possibility that abortion may be the taking of an innocent life, this comparison seems all to chillingly sober; if you don’t, then it seems laughable. Either way, try looking at this from the other point of view; if some crazy guy had shot Hitler point-blank in front of wife, kids, family, etc., as he entered a church, would you villify the shooter, or call him a hero? Then again, what if some crazy guy shot your family physician in the same manner?
What makes the difference in which side you side with in the above scenario is your own personal definition of when life begins. I, for one, believe that life begins sometime shortly after fertilization; for simplicity’s sake, I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and say that life begins 48 hours after fertilization. That means, in my eyes, the day-after treatment is fine, but the rest is murder. When do you believe life begins?
SG….Your premise doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Bill reports….the Dr. knew damn good and well how MANY people felt about what he did. He accepted the ridicule, he continued his course knowing that his life had been threatened before.
Bill had not one single thing to do with this murder. Nothing like attempting to disparage Bill through the criminal acts of another….go ahead and try to take Bill on…by refuting his facts…that would be the honest way…
…oh and by the way…the most diffucult way to refute Bill…but that may be to hard for some to do……