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

Frannie Em

DeBurca

I think you make a good point.  It was definitely an act to make a political point and terrify others with it.  I don’t think that can be ignored.  

By Frannie Em on 06/01/2009 3:52 pm
Andrea Brandon

Resolution 1566 refers to it as:

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

UN Security Council Resolution 1566

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal criminal code. 18 U.S.C.§2331[25] defines terrorism as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."

And of course it follows that each country seems to have its own definition.
By Andrea Brandon on 06/01/2009 11:18 pm
S G
It makes you sad and misguided.
By S G on 06/01/2009 11:27 am
R.J.B. Reed

Executing someone for their profession in such a high profile manner is an act of terrorism because it is done with the idea that fear will prevent other people from participating in that particular profession.  This is very similar to the murder of Sitara Achakzai, one of Afganistan’s leading female rights activists, by the Taliban.

This was not the first time Dr. Tiller was shot for his work so I doubt that he didn’t realize that something bad could happen.  But, as one of the few doctors who would perform late term abortions, he felt that it was important to continue.  Late term abortions are generally done when something has gone horribly awry.  I know that were I in a situation where a late term abortion was necessary (and believe me, it wouldn’t be by choice only medical necessity) I would want there to be a competent and experienced doctor available.  Considering how uncomfortable this is for most physicicians even when there aren’t terrorists trying to kill them, I think that Dr. Tiller was doing a service that helped women in need.

By R.J.B. Reed on 06/01/2009 11:45 am
Amanda C
This wasn’t terrorism, this was one sharpshooter taking out what he perceived to be a murderer.  No other people were hurt.  Why are some women defending this abhorrent baby killer so?

neither was his medical profession. he would take care of the women patients who came to him for help.

no other people were hurt.  why are YOU defending his cold-blooded murderer?

Doing what he had to do to end the lives of those infants makes me wonder if the doctor was sane. 

they aren’t INFANTS, they were fetuses. infants need to be born. they had not been born. this makes me wonder if YOU are sane. i already know this poor doctors’ murderer WAS NOT sane, he was completely nuts.

I say good riddance.

you are just as bad as the cold blooded murderer. HOW DARE YOU enjoy a death of another human???

some pro-lifer you are! Psh, you dont care about life, you just care about who you want to die.

By Amanda C on 06/01/2009 4:47 pm
Maggie W
I don’t know what Giroux is smoking, but she needs to put the pipe down and face reality.  Her theory about the " China mentality" is a crock.  There are many women who do not want children ,or they realize they can only afford one or two.  It’s not necessary to have a litter to fully enjoy motherhood. Also, there are women who find great satisfaction in their careers, and have made big differences in their communities.  And as for this insane quote, " There is no greater gift you can give to a child than more brothers and sisters.”   Oh really, and what about when all those brothers and sisters go to bed hungry each night?   Isn’t that a lovely gift? 
By Maggie W on 06/01/2009 1:21 am
Mel Berg
Maggie, when I read that "China mentality and that women should have more children, my mouth dropped. I agree with you, the earth can only handle so many people. There are far to many children now that are malnourished and not cared for. The stories I read about Jon and Kate plus 8 and the octomom and now these people having t.v. programs, I think it is sick.
By Mel Berg on 06/01/2009 6:54 am
Andrea Brandon

Reminder:

513,000 kids in foster care

130,000 eligible for adoption

By Andrea Brandon on 06/01/2009 11:30 pm
Harriet Shoebridge

I watch television.  I should have been prepared for this.  Afterall a successful television network does not schedule programs featuring the wife, the husband, and several children without research indicating a receptive audience, that is, enough viewers to pay for those advertisements that in turn make for that successful network.  Yes, indeed, I should have been prepared … now … when was it? … can’t recall … but I most surely remember hearing one ‘wife’ say, with that ever dazed smile, ‘I’ve been nursing for 20-years’ … after which I immediately changed channels because, silly me, who wants to hear that?  Who, indeed?  Apparently enough viewers to satisfy advertisers, that’s who.  So.  In truth, no excuse for an absence of that prep work with which to face this … what is it? … ah, yes … pro-life feminism.

The parameters of pro-life feminism seem to include marriage between a man and woman, with the woman willing to earn her keep by producing children.  I say ‘earn her keep’ because if a woman devotes her years to producing and caring for children then, equally, her time in the workforce, where the dollars come from, is necessarily curtailed.

Just a few issues here.  Marriage does not ‘work’ for everyone.  Partners in a committed relationship, in and outside ‘marriage’, are not always him and her.  Not every relationship is cemented with countless rugrats.  And on and so forth. 

And yes.  Because it needs saying.  I was a single parent.  And my experience, my daughter’s experience, was that married couples with children, for the most part, approach single parents with one of two attitudes, that is, horribly patronizing or equally horribly condescending … this of course varying with the financial status of a single parent, ‘kindness’ a function of one’s bank account … and so and thus and tying back into topic … I am unprepared to follow the lead of those who, at one time, were so very unkind.  Marriage and children.  Fine.  For those for whom this works.  But and at the same time, please do me the ‘kindness’ of allowing me to live my life and make my choices. 

By Harriet Shoebridge on 06/01/2009 2:11 am
Judy K.
Harriet, thanks for a new perspective.  Not being a single parent I didn’t realize that a person who chooses to be one would get attitude from married parents.  Things are pretty live and let live where I’m at in Northern California but it still boggles my mind that its anyone’s business just who or what makes up a family as long as it functions, provides for the children and allows them to grow into productive memebers of society.  If we were all the same there wouldn’t be any inventors, free thinkers or people carving new niches in the world.  I, for one, applaud you your choices.
By Judy K. on 06/02/2009 12:55 am
Ruth  Jernick
All true feminists, I hope, will say here: Yes, pro-life feminists are wonderful; pro-choice feminists are wonderful; all women who are feminists are wonderful; all women are wonderful. Women must stop oppressing other women. It’s about time the feminist tent opened wide enough to let everyone in and make them feel that they belong. (I sincerely hope this conversation about feminism does not deteriorate into an abortion debate. The tragedy in Kansas City, as unthinkable and horrendous as it was, has nothing to do with feminism.)
By Ruth Jernick on 06/01/2009 4:09 am
Harriet Shoebridge
… agree to disagree … an abortion platform, pro and con … under the same ‘big top’ … yes … but my Shirley Temple days are decades behind me, The Good Ship Lollipop has long set sail for the high seas … but, and yes again, thank you for these good and sweet words …
By Harriet Shoebridge on 06/01/2009 6:05 am
Doe Nichols

Ruth

Thank you.  Your point is well-made.  I agree completely.

By Doe Nichols on 06/01/2009 9:41 am
EKA -
Ruth, I agree also. A woman’s "choice’ should be supported by other women, whatever that choice may be. 
By EKA - on 06/01/2009 10:53 am
Frannie Em
Ruth - Well put and I agree
By Frannie Em on 06/01/2009 4:11 pm