Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

The Stealth 'Feminists' Who Oppose Abortion

By Adele M. Stan, The American Prospect. Posted October 24, 2006.


The anti-choice group Feminists for Life is dangerously clever and well-connected.
Advertisement

This article is reprinted from the American Prospect.

The leaves are falling, the daylight waning, and the air has that bracing snap to it; 'tis the season of deceptive political advertising. Weeks before congressional elections, this usually this takes the form of negative television ads placed by the supporters of one candidate or another. But, on the Web, at least one issue-oriented group is offering a clever and upbeat form of the classic deceptive ad: Feminists for Life, a group that seeks to outlaw all abortions, no exceptions.

Now, perhaps, as the Feminists for Life literature says, it is possible to oppose all forms of legal abortion -- even those that would save the life of the pregnant woman -- and still be a feminist. But if one were to take such a stance and consider oneself a feminist, one would certainly believe that women should have access to contraception, right? Apparently not if one is a member of Feminists for Life, an organization that refuses to take a stand on whether or not contraception should be legal. (Note that few, if any, Protestant denominations take issue with the use of any kind of contraception, although some religious-right anti-abortion organizations regard the morning-after pill as an abortifacient.) When Feminists for Life has chosen to address the issue of contraception, it has invariably been to point out the health hazards posed in particular forms of birth control.

So, despite its self-description as a "non-sectarian" organization, Feminists for Life may as well be an office of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which, together with the Knights of Columbus (a fraternal Catholic lay organization), co-sponsored the Feminists for Life's 2003/2004 advertising campaign. (Deirdre McQuaid, hired earlier this year by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as the church's new "pro-life spokesperson," according to a Catholic Web site, came to the post from her staff position at Feminists for Life.)

You've got to hand it to the organization; its ads are always appealing, the best-known of them featuring an attractive young woman of indeterminate race, and the tagline: "Women Deserve Better Than Abortion." Hard to argue with that. As Air America's Rachel Maddow once told Tucker Carlson, it's not like women are running out to get "recreational abortions." I first noticed these ads perhaps two years ago, in the form of posters on the Washington, D.C., MetroBuses. (Someone took a Sharpie to one, yielding this result: "Women Deserve Better Than Abortion THIS AD.")

The latest incarnation of the Feminists for Life advertising strategy -- which features a message that has been adopted by South Dakota supporters of the state's imminent referendum on an all-out abortion ban -- can be found right here, at The American Prospect Online: a cycling three-panel click-through window with the beckoning title, "Pro-Woman Answers" (panel one, which features the same photograph as in the "Women Deserve Better" campaign) "to Pro-Choice Questions" (panel 2, featuring a studious-looking young woman with glasses and a pierced nose). The third panel features a photo of a very glammed-up Patricia Heaton, celebrity spokesperson (late of the sitcom, "Everybody Loves Raymond"), with the headline, "FREE! Sign Up!"

Right from the get-go, Feminists for Life is hoping to lure in young women -- obviously from such liberal venues as the Prospect -- through the artful use of the all-but-branded term of the reproductive rights movement: pro-choice. Nowhere in its come-on ad on the Prospect's site will you find the name of the group -- the "for Life" piece being a dead giveaway of its intent -- nor will you find the terms "pro-life" or "right to life," signatures of the anti-feminist, anti-choice movements.

Okay, so you're a bright young woman looking for "pro-woman answers to pro-choice questions," so you click through for the (FREE!) sign-up, and you find yourself on a page at the Feminists for Life Web site featuring a letter from Serrin Foster, the organization's president, that presents Feminists for Life as a group occupying the middle ground in the abortion debate (as if there could be middle ground in this debate):

Since 1973, it's been the same thing. One side of the hotly contested abortion wars yells, "What about the woman?" The other side yells back, "What about the baby?" People have been pushed into their respective corners. It's hard to talk when there is all that distance between us. But Feminists for Life has been bridging the gap, answering the most critical questions in the most contentious places -- from Capitol Hill to college campuses -- with woman-centered solutions.
Nowhere in Foster's missive does she tell her reader that her group opposes all abortions, even for the life of the mother, though she does hint at that platform a bit: "Perhaps you've wondered how to answer tough questions like, 'What about rape?' Perhaps you didn't want to choose sides or tell someone else what to do or think. Perhaps you just wanted a good answer for yourself." Now that you've signed up for your "pro-woman answers to pro-choice questions," you receive, via e-mail, a weekly answer to a "pro-choice" question.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: feminism, abortion

Adele M. Stan is the author of the weblog, AddieStan.com, and the book, Debating Sexual Correctness.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fraudulent Fanatics
Posted by: yellow on Oct 24, 2006 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read much about FFL. They are NO feminists and that's for sure. Feminists are pro-choice, period!! I read an article in the Nation about them. They are a cagey bunch! They are amongst those who spread false information about abortions like abortion is linked to sterility and breast cancer. They harrass women going into abortion clinics and pressure politicians to have federal funding withdrawn from family planning groups and public health care providers that deal with abortion as one legitimate option in dealing with unwanted pregnancies. They support anyone who is against abortion. Their first concern is stopping abortion not feminism or women. They need to be exposed. They're no feminists!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fraudulent Fanatics Posted by: questionthemark1
» RE: Fraudulent Fanatics Posted by: fearbiter
» Breast cancer claim Posted by: BlueTigress
» Could you please elaborate? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Fraudulent Fanatics Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Fraudulent Fanatics Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Fraudulent Fanatics Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Fraudulent Fanatics Posted by: yellow
» RE: Fraudulent Fanatics Posted by: launcher
» I am opposed to all abortions Posted by: LDavistrueblue
no info no choice
Posted by: edith on Oct 24, 2006 1:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as long as our public schools are muzzled by the restricition of full discussion of population control choices, our young women will be easy prey for these kinds of hucksters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT AT ALL
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 24, 2006 2:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FFL is as prochoice and profeminist as the Bushies are propeace = NOT AT ALL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still, it is a backhanded tribute to the concept of feminism.
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 24, 2006 3:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised to find anyone, so clearly contrary to feminist history, borrowing the nomenclature. Yes, it is a bit like selling Humvees to Earth Firsters. Peddlers will peddle whatever they have to sell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They are not villains
Posted by: BJT on Oct 24, 2006 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is so filled with snarl words there is no wonder it can only be found published on the Internet. Nearly everything FFL say and do is interpreted in this article as though it were some kind of KKK front group. Snarl words like "anti-choice" only reveal your inability to comprehend and unwillingness to consider the other party's perspective. You see them as a villainous threat, and why? Because they advocate equality for women but not the power to dispense with the unborn?

FFL are not villains. That final, bolded paragraph is actually a very enlightened stance. There have been cases in the past where adult Christian women have been raped and impregnated. Not only did they have the child, but they kept and raised the baby, and forgave the rapist. Takes a bit more guts to do that than to just abort the child and live in bondage to anger at the one who wronged you.

I'm against government legislation on this topic in any direction. I believe abortion is murder, but I know that there is no way to enforce it on a society who does not itself fully believe that, and I do not wish to drive abortions underground so that more lives are threatened.

The venom of the above article only illustrates the hypersensitivity of the heathens in this country. The very existence of Christianity offends them, makes them feel attacked. I've even worked with people who see "God Bless!" at the end of an email from a stranger to be an unforgivable assault on their personal beliefs.

If the two camps can't be civil, why don't you just leave each other alone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They are not villains Posted by: Intraspecto
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: xennonette
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: mbarthel
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: Zenobia
» They're Villains Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: Ocean tides
» "G-d Bless" or "Heil Jesus" Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: "G-d Bless" or "Heil Jesus" Posted by: crashgrab
» Anti-choice is not a snarl word Posted by: crashgrab
» True irony Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: True irony & true deceptives Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: yellow
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: flower
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: They are not villains Posted by: yellow
The legal issue has to be considered
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 24, 2006 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider two extremes:

(1) A woman has four abortions because she doesn't like to use birth control of any kind, but doesn't want to have children.

(2) A woman is raped but decides not to have an abortion due to her personal beliefs.

Obviously these are difficult issues, but life is full of difficult issues. I'd think that both of the above situations are a little crazy, personally.

Let's consider another example, however:

(3) A woman finds she is pregnant; being single and in college (or high school) she decides to have an abortion - but abortion is illegal, and she tries to have a 'back-alley abortion' except that the doctor is really an undercover police officer. The woman is arrested and confined in a prison hospital under constant observation until the child is born, at which point she is charged with 'attempted murder of the unborn' and sentenced to 5-10 years in prison, while the child is sent off to a state-funded Christian orphanage.

As a male observer, I'm not directly involved in this - but it sure seems that the group described above would put in place laws that would lead to the third situation if they could. That just doesn't seem right, so it's probably wise to actively oppose such groups.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Naive much? Posted by: McJulie
well-connected
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Oct 24, 2006 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jane Roberts, wife of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, serves as legal counsel on a pro bono basis. She served as Executive Vice President on the Board of Directors from 1995 to 1999.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: well-connected Posted by: goatini
Advice to FFL
Posted by: hagwind on Oct 24, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If y'all are serious about being feminists, start promoting lesbianism! Lesbianism greatly reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancy, and if you're queasy about birth control -- hey, lesbians don't need it. I had a misterectomy 30 years ago. It's been 100% effective for me and so far there have been no unpleasant physical or psychological side effects.

FFL lacks credibility as a feminist organization because its positions so closely resemble the same old patriarchal same-old. Advocating for the lesbian alternative could change all that. Sure, Pat Robertson won't like it, and neither will the pope, but you can't please all the guys all the time, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Advice to FFL Posted by: fork
» RE: Advice to FFL Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Advice to FFL Posted by: Envi
My thoughts
Posted by: Intraspecto on Oct 24, 2006 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If women used birth control, and practiced safe sex, then there would not be an issue right? I mean logically this is the simplest way to solve the issue? Then abortion would not be a problem, and used only for medical emergencies.

Futhermore, the problem of "stealth feminists" is a non-issue. Just because they dont agree on your view of abortion does not make them non-feminists. Many of them would probably agree about wages and healthcare and equality, but would say that they support pro-active choices concerning abortion.

In the end, it comes down to personal responsibility. Because we all know that no birth controls are 100%, responsible sexual behavior is needed- from BOTH MEN and WOMEN.

Yes, I am a man but one of common sense. Myself and my wife were virgins until we married (her due to religious beliefs and me because I just didnt believe in it until marriage). And it saved us a lot of problems. I know that not everyone feels this way, but a little common sense goes a long way in these issues.

Yes- I am pro-woman. Womankind is Mankinds other half, and our greatest strength.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My thoughts Posted by: mbarthel
» Women's rights is the issue Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: My thoughts Posted by: Intraspecto
Being Radical for the Sake of Discussion
Posted by: vincen13 on Oct 24, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's keep abortion a legal, safe, alternative but test for paternity and imprison the man who impregnated the woman needing an abortion for five years, no questions asked.

I'd just like to see how the law and the rhetoric would change if men were vulnerable to their lives being changed drastically by an unwanted pregnancy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "shit happens" -- No excuses! Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Heck, let's return to stoning! Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: "shit happens" -- No excuses! Posted by: AppleMommie AZ
What is FFL's political stance?
Posted by: CJC on Oct 24, 2006 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I didn't read the column carefully enough, but I
don't see that FFL is necessarily directly supporting the
SD abortion ban, for example.

Yes, they're clearly out there in public with ads and so
forth and they certainly aren't naive about the public debate
about reproductive rights. But as long as they are appealing
to individuals with "never use contraception" and "never
have an abortion no matter what" messages they can call
themselves whatever they like. Is it news that we don't
all agree?

Are they really "non-sectarian" or are they a front group
for a certain segment of official Catholic theology? What's
the evidence? Will Chief Justice Roberts rule on the law
in a secular society or on religious beliefs? That's the
important public question.

It really is hard to object to others having an uncompromising
"pro-life" personal position and practicing forgiveness
and understanding in the case of children conceived
through violence.

The Amish recently provided a very public lesson in
deep forgiveness. The resident conservative columnist
for the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby, oddly criticized them
for not wanting vengeance. Since the murderer was
already dead it's not clear on whom vengeance would
be wreaked in any case.

For myself, advocating for women's rights to contraception
and other forms of birth control has been a big part of
my personal and professional life. I loathe the moralizing
that some would foist on others. But a commitment to
freedom means having to tolerate other ideas. But when
it comes to the law reproductive rights must be protected
everywhere.

Remember that one of GWB's first public acts after his
inauguration in 2001 was to reinstate the "Gag Rule" and
prohibit the US from funding any international family
planning organizations that weren't publicly committed
to an anti-abortion position. Now that was vile. He probably
is thereby responsible for thousands or more uncounted
deaths of "innocent" (one of his favorite words) women
and children around the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to force a rape victim to give birth
Posted by: okcamp on Oct 24, 2006 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is pure perversion in my opinion, something right out of nazi porn magazines

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do you expect...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 24, 2006 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. when so many "feminists" are more interested in enforcing their own views of how women should be rather than opening up opportunities for women to be and live the way they choose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How do you figure ?? Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: What do you expect... Posted by: crashgrab
» Oh, we already have... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Oh, we already have... Posted by: crashgrab
What is equality for women?
Posted by: Bracamontes on Oct 24, 2006 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is equality for women? I think no choice means no equality. Who would want that? The patriarchal systems that exist through out society permeate this mentality to keep women in a subservient position. They should never be seen in the same light as men. Why aren't these groups standing up against male vasectomy. Isn't that abortion in a male body. Don't all the dead sperm count as lives lost? Maybe I messed this side of the argument. But, god forbid you talk bad about the male body. bob

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dishonest names
Posted by: terihu on Oct 24, 2006 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feminists for Life is an oxymoron, if "Life" is the euphemism that has been co-opted by the Right to mean "force all pregnancies to term."

Like Jews for Jesus, you gotta ask...why won't they just call themselves what they actually are? What are they trying to hide?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow...
Posted by: ogman on Oct 24, 2006 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're almost as deceptive as the Discovery Institute (but not quite). This seems to be a developing right-wing pattern; cloak your fascism in a pretty website, talk about anything but your real goals, and hire a few college-educated bullshit artists to write your stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who should and who shouldn't
Posted by: ggmurray on Oct 24, 2006 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who want to have children by all means should.
People who aren't ready, should wait.
People who are sure they don't want children should request a simple sterilization procedure.

So the problem really is with the ones who are not ready, but get pregnant anyway. I think compassion is called for here, and a different solution for each situation - for each woman or couple, as the case may be.

I had an abortion many years ago, and for me it was in the end, a compassionate act. Not a decision arrived at easily, but one I have never regretted. From it I learned that each life is precious to God, and each one is cared for, here and hereafter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think you can...
Posted by: WyrdSister on Oct 25, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
reconsile a personal belief that abortion is not for you with believing in allowing other women to make that choice for themselves.

Not having an abortion would then be your choice.

But once you start to force your beliefs on others, it is no longer reconsilable and no longer a personal belief.

I find it incredibly insulting when a group like this thinks that I am not responsible enough to make decisions regarding my own body.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminists for Life Patricia Heaton
Posted by: stephanies419 on Oct 25, 2006 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had never heard of this group until recently when I found out "Everybody Loves Raymond" star Patricia Heaton had filmed a spot supporting the disgusting attack by uber-hater Rush Limbaugh on Michael J. Fox, who claimed in his radio show that Michael J. Fox was faking his Parkinsons symptoms in a political ad. Patricia Heaton, the Honorary Chair of Feminists for Life, apparently supports not only the right to restrict women's choice, but removing choice for those who suffer from deadly disease. She is the TV shill for Albertsons and Savon Pharmacy, and I for one am going to boycott them in response. I refuse to support these extremists in any way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't they consider...
Posted by: imstephencrane on Oct 25, 2006 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that maybe a woman just doesn't like kids? Being a woman doesn't mean you fulfill the stereotype of woman. Sometimes it doesn't even have to do with a career goal, economics, or the circumstances of pregnancy. Maybe the woman just doesn't want to have kids? And even though I realize that isn't justification to deny a being life, pregnancies are expensive and useless if you're only going to give the child away. Another fundamental flaw in the Feminist for Life bullshit is their upholding of specifically Christian values. In attempting to force child-bearing on women they are also upholding the long-standing Christian tradition of saving souls even if they don't want to be saved. How is their mission any different from that of missionaries who beat and starved natives in the Americas, Africa, and other areas into conversion for "their own benefit". I love how Americans gloat in their "modern" government and slander "Islamo-facists" in the Middle East for integrating church and state. What the hell, we do it too we're just much more subtle about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't they consider... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Don't they consider... Posted by: imstephencrane
Women in central America
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Oct 26, 2006 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi, any chance we could have an article about the women of central America?

Read this as an example of what they are going through.

Google "women murdered in guatemala" and check out how much fun that country is, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately this may work
Posted by: FSD57110 on Oct 29, 2006 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in South Dakota and am trying to help overturn the abortion ban law that was passed in March by the state legislature. The good news - the latest poll in the Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) on October 29 shows the ban will be repealed at 52-42. Shockingly, the poll shows that men will vote to repeal the ban at 56-39 but for women it is a statistical dead heat - 48-45 to repeal. The only group that shows higher support is Republicans.

I was absolutely floored by this statistic - women are split on an abortion ban that would only allow abortions to save the life of the woman. There would be no exception for rape, incest or health. I guess I would be curious if this is true across the country or just an aberration to South Dakota.

However, I think this may be occurring because supporters of the ban, such as the Catholic Church of which I am a member, are using the arguments of FFL as the author notes. At our church 3 weeks ago, the sermon spoke of the woman's feelings and adopting the position that this is to save women (from themselves, presumably). The paper has had several letters from women who regret their decision as an argument to keep the ban.

Oh, by the way, the poll also asked the question if a rape/incest exception were included would you support the ban. In such a case the ban would win 56-32 with 58 percent of women (and 54 percent of men) supporting the ban. Only Democrats would not support such a ban - and that is by a 42-46 margin. So, I suspect that, should the repeal win on November 7, the SD legislature will pass another ban with the exception within 6 months. That measure will go to the Supreme Court.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prolife feminists do exist
Posted by: marykderr on Oct 31, 2006 3:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Adele--There genuinely are such human beings as prolife feminists.

For example, if you sat down and actually conversed with prolife feminists, for example me: I have proudly identified as a prolife feminist for at least 20 years. I have fought for comprehensive sex education, full access to contraception, antiretroviral access, LGBT rights, the sexual/reproductive rights of disabled persons like myself, prevention and healing resources for domestic violence & rape, measures to increase male sexual & parental responsibility, cleanup of environmental toxins including those that impair reproductive health, family-friendly workplace policies, improved maternal child nutrition and health, etc, etc....in local, national, & global contexts...among other causes that save and improve human lives, born and unborn, in the abortion context & elsewhere....

On the online Political Compass test, my score puts me way out in left-libertarian field. I am a Buddhist practitioner with a profound interest in feminist spirituality, and with a staunch belief in the separation of "church" and state.

I am by no means the only person who just maybe possibly isn't telling a lie with the words "prolife feminist." There are a lot of us all over the world, both in the present and throughout the long history of feminism.

We are not liars out for the "triumph" of reactionary theocracy. We come from rather different places, to say the least. In fact we'd like to work more with prochoice feminists on common ground issues that will reduce abortion and expand women's nonviolent choices.

Would you kindly please, at least for a moment, even if just as some wacky thought experiment, set aside your dismissive stereotypes and entertain the possibility that some genuine feminists might actually oppose abortion/abortion as a general right?

If you don't find this message here plausible, I'd encourage you to visit this website for the new greatly expanded edition of the book ProLife Feminism Yesterday & Today: www.xlibris.com/prolifefeminism

I did thorough research, writing, & editing for this book & stand by the work.

The "excerpt" of the book presented there, which you can read at no charge, is the table of contents, which begins to show the long herstory & diversity of prolife feminists.

If you don't find the table of contents plausible, you (or anyone else who's a skeptic) are welcome to email me at marykderr@aol.com and ask to receive a copy of the book for free. (For anyone who is blind/visually impaired, there is a reader-friendly format I can send.)

Mary Krane Derr

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Prolife feminists do exist Posted by: morticia
» RE: Prolife feminists do exist Posted by: marykderr
» RE: Prolife feminists do exist Posted by: morticia
» RE: Prolife feminists do exist Posted by: marykderr
» RE: Prolife feminists do exist Posted by: marykderr
» RE: Prolife feminists do exist Posted by: morticia
» Cont'd Posted by: morticia
» RE: Cont'd Posted by: marykderr
» RE: Cont'd Posted by: marykderr
» RE: Cont'd Posted by: morticia
» RE: Cont'd Posted by: marykderr
» RE: Cont'd Posted by: morticia
» A few more thoughts.... Posted by: morticia