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
Kansas law says that if the mother’s life is endangered and two physicians agree that it is, then abortion on a viable fetus is legal.
Picture this: you’re dying in labor and the doctor decides that if he delivers the fetus the mother will die for sure. So he asks the husband - who do you want to live?
Andrea, when I had my daughter my hubby and I talked about that situation, who would he pick, and of course he would have picked me, now if the choice was up to me, I am not sure what I would have done but if I knew my child would die shortly after being born, then I will be HONEST, I would choose myself. If my child was going to die due to some type of birth defect minutes, hours or even days after birth and the time outside of my womb it would suffer, why make its life outside of the womb awful? Why? You can’t tell me if you KNEW that your child was not going to live you would choose that child over yourself…you can’t say that.
Where is your proof that the majority of late term abortions he did were on fetuses who would have lived healthy normal lives had an abortion not been performed?
Terrorism is when a person takes the law into their own hands and murders. All terrorists believe their cause is ‘right’ and it doesn’t matter if they’re using a bullet or a bomb.. it IS a terrorist act.
We are a country of laws and that Dr. was performing a legal service and whether someone has a problem with that or not, they do not get to kill him.
DeBurca: Terrorism is when a person takes the law into their own hands and murders.
Dictionary definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
There was nothing political about this. An unbalanced man took out another unbalanced man. There is no terrorism here. I agree with you that the doctor should not have been killed, but I’m not sorry that he was.
I would say all those who flew planes into the Twin Towers were ‘unbalanced’ men. Anyone who takes their beliefs to that extreme are unbalanced. And anyone, including those who flew into the Twin Towers, believes their cause is justified, just like this guy who killed the doctor. And this ‘unbalanced man’ had plenty of help reaching that conclusion from the likes of ‘Operation Rescue’, Bill O’Reilly and the general vitriolic tone of the campaign of the right to lifers’ such as those at Notre Dame pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood inside.
McVeigh though he was justified too, and was also unbalanced. Terrorism doesn’t only come in the shape of a middle eastern man.
: )