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

C Hardy
LL…please send me the info that says Dr. Tiller performed abortions on babies that could have lived outside of the womb?  That is against the law…right?
By C Hardy on 06/01/2009 1:33 pm
MK P
Thanks for asking, C Hardy — but the sad truth is, LL seems to be very susceptible to any inflamatory idea without regard to whether or not it is actually factual.
By MK P on 06/01/2009 4:08 pm
Andrea Brandon

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?

By Andrea Brandon on 06/01/2009 11:12 pm
C Hardy

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. 

By C Hardy on 06/02/2009 6:46 am
R.J.B. Reed

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?

By R.J.B. Reed on 06/01/2009 1:35 pm
DeBúrca obj

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.  

By DeBúrca obj on 06/01/2009 11:06 am
Marjorie C.

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. 

By Marjorie C. on 06/01/2009 11:43 am
DeBúrca obj

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. 

By DeBúrca obj on 06/01/2009 1:36 pm
deber B
I am absolutely shocked that President Obama did not stop this act of terrorism on our home soil!  He could’ve prevented this act of terrorism against an American if only he had paid attention to all of the reports!
By deber B on 06/01/2009 1:42 pm
Libra Lady
Deber…that is so true….where was he….oh…date night….he was so tired that he slept in while the terrorist attacked the church Sunday.  Can’t sleep on the job obama….now it happened on your watch!!!  President Bush is off the hook on this one!!
By Libra Lady on 06/01/2009 1:46 pm
deber B

: )

By deber B on 06/01/2009 2:00 pm
MK P
Another good analogy, DeBurca — look how the right wing zealots applaud Tiller’s murder, they are acting just like the Muslim extremists.
By MK P on 06/01/2009 8:03 pm
DeBúrca obj
"the doctor should not have been killed, but I’m not sorry that he was. "… disgusting comment btw and a perfect example of what I am talking about. 
By DeBúrca obj on 06/01/2009 1:37 pm
deber B
Freedom of speech, Deburca…..freedom of speech.   It is not uncommon for people to wish the same fate on someone who kill  late term babies for a living.    
By deber B on 06/01/2009 1:46 pm
DeBúrca obj
Doesn’t make it any less disgusting OR disturbing.
By DeBúrca obj on 06/01/2009 3:48 pm