|
|
 |
|
In terms of helping us determine precisely how hosed are we by the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, his marriage gives us very little to go on. Not much about Alito's wife sheds light on his leanings, other than the fact that she sent him on vacation to fantasy baseball camp. During Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation process, by contrast, much was made of Jane Sullivan Roberts' work for an organization called Feminists for Life. That revelation left us with many questions, such as: "Feminists for what?"
Not a typo: Feminists for Life. As in, against abortion. Indeed, this group's "feminism" is not your mother's feminism. It's more like your great-grandmother's feminism — and, if Feminists for Life has its way, it'll be your daughter's feminism, too.
Founded in 1972, Feminists for Life (FFL) models itself on the tradition of early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, who, when they weren't busy fighting for suffrage, worked to oppose abortion. They regarded the procedure
— which was illegal and dangerous at the time — as proof that society had failed women. Wrote Anthony: "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged."
Likewise, the position of Feminists for Life (which declined three interview requests) is that abortion hurts women: that abortion is always — in fact or effect — coerced, and that women should not have to make a "choice" between motherhood and the rest of their lives. According to its tastefully designed website, FFL — describing itself as a "nonsectarian, nonpartisan, grassroots organization ... shaped by the core feminist values of justice, nondiscrimination, and nonviolence" — "recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women." The goal of the group: "systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion — primarily lack of practical resources and support — through holistic, woman-centered solutions."
Well, that's refreshing. No railing against the ladies for making selfish choices, no little pictures of tiny feet. A commitment to non-violence, a focus on the "root causes" — they use the word " holistic," for God's sake. It all sounds entirely reasonable, doesn't it?
Try radical. The group believes abortion is an act of violence that is unacceptable under any circumstances. Unacceptable under any circumstances. Including rape, incest, major fetal defects, and danger to the mother's life. This position — "holistic solutions" aside — puts FLL to the right of their sister organization, Attila the Hun for Life.
Not only that, but FFL is sketchy about birth control. "Preconception issues, including abstinence and contraception, are outside of our mission," reads their website. "Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while
FFL's president has said that while banning abortion is a goal, to do so is "not enough." |
others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons." So it's not clear precisely how FFL would go about reducing unwanted pregnancies. Or, for that matter, rape and incest.
Yet to be fair, FFL does not spend its time actively trying to outlaw abortion, or directly supporting any of the laws — waiting periods, parental involvement, mandatory "counseling" — contrived to stand in the way of women and necessary health care. FLL president Serrin Foster has said that while banning abortion is a goal, to do so is "not enough." FFL won't close up shop if Roe goes, they say; unlike other anti-abortion groups, they appear to understand that outlawing abortion neither magically eliminates unplanned pregnancy nor causes women to say, "Oh, okay! Guess I won't have one, then." (Still, the gruesome abortions-gone-wrong stories on the FFL website do beg this question: if you think abortion is dangerous now, what will you have to say to the women who'll die from even riskier illegal procedures?)
So what does FFL do? The "feminist" part of its title has actually given it some strange bedfellows. Ten years ago, FFL worked with both Catholic Charities USA and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund to stop President Clinton from signing a welfare reform bill that, in part, would have eliminated assistance for additional children born to girls under 18. The thinking behind the bill went: if these gals know they won't get more cash, they'll try extra hard not to have more babies. The multipartisan opposition said: not only are you effectively starving children, you're also asking for more abortions.
In 1998, FFL offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the bombing of the All Woman Health Care Clinic in Birmingham, AL. (Eric Rudolph later pled guilty to the bombing, which killed an off-duty police officer and critically injured a nurse.) "The use of violence to oppose another form of violence — abortion — is not pro-life and undermines the entire movement," said Serrin Foster in a statement at the time. Violence not "pro-life?" That's yet another concept on which many other anti-abortion activists remain unclear.
The same year, FFL filed an affidavit (written by Jane Roberts) in support of two teens — one pregnant, one a new mom — who'd
Can "feminists" be "pro-life?" It's an interesting question, but it's not the most important one. |
sued a Kentucky School district for denying them admission to the National Honor Society. FFL argued that this no-pregnancy policy would encourage students either to seek abortions or to hide their pregnancies and thus go dangerously without prenatal care.
These days, though, FFL is focusing most of its resources on college outreach. Not only is FFL lecturing on campuses and recruiting new activists, it's also endeavoring to make college and child-bearing compatible. How? Mainly by working to provide the resources that pregnant and parenting students need to stay in school. FFL has supported plans at colleges such as Georgetown to create affordable housing for pregnant and parenting students, offer extra help with financial aid, and make videotaped versions of classes available to mothers.
So yes, FFL does do some good. It's hard to argue with their efforts to help women by making parenting a truly viable choice. Problem is, their goal is to make parenting the only choice. For that reason, The Nation's Katha Pollitt wrote in her August 29 column that Feminists for Life "aren't really feminists — a feminist could not force another woman to bear a child, any more than she could turn a pregnant teenager out into a snowstorm."
Can "feminists" be "pro-life?" It's an interesting question, but it's not the most important one. After all, "vegetarians" eat fish; there are exceptions to any label. What's more interesting about FFL is what effect they'll have: not on Roe v. Wade per se, but — perhaps more importantly — on the women who'll pick up their torch.
We've all heard about how more and more young women are finding it easy to oppose abortion because they weren't pregnant young women in 1972. Those are the women FFL is targeting, and those are the women who'll respond. They'll respond because FFL seems much cooler than the dorky, churchy anti-abortion groups on campus. They'll respond because they'll fall for the notion that FFL is unique in its efforts to address the causes of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. They'll respond because they'll mistake these efforts for some sort of new "middle ground" — though it's one that feminists who support abortion rights have occupied for years. They'll respond because it hasn't occurred to them that a woman could have all the possible resources available to her and still not want to become a mother. How sad it is — and scary — that members of a generation that's been afraid to use the word "feminist" will now do so at such cost.
n°
| ABOUT THE AUTHOR: |
 |
Lynn Harris is author of the satirical novel Death By Chick Lit and its prequel, Miss Media, as well as co-creator of the award-winning website BreakupGirl.net. A regular contributor to Glamour, Salon, The New York Times, Babble and many others, she also writes the "Rabbi's Wife" column for Nextbook.org. Visit her at LynnHarris.net.
|
DISCUSSION FORUMS:
The politics of abortion - where are we headed?
The morality of abortion - where do you stand?
Share your stories
©2005
Lynn Harris and Nerve.com |
| |
|
|
|
