|
|
Feminists for Life
Feminist History
You may think you know what "feminist" history or philosophy is, but you haven't heard the whole story. Feminists for Life has a fresh perspective and some fascinating historical research that will make you proud to label yourself a feminist! Did you know the early feminists - people like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Wollstonecraft - were pro-life? Mary Krane Derr started a regular column for The American Feminist called "Herstory Worth Repeating", which is now continued by Lisa Bellecci-st.romain. Enlighten yourself! For a few quick quotes, check out Voices of Our Feminist Foremothers. (This text is also available for PDF download or purchase as an attractive poster.) Today's pro-life feminists have different ways of explaining their views. Get to know a few through these articles originally published in FFL's quarterly newsletter The American Feminist.
Fighting
for Pro-Life Medical Students: Dr. Pamela E. Smith
Elizabeth Cady Stanton Honored by FFL of Western New York
Cassandra's
Fate
Pro-Life,
Pro-Feminism
Did I Leave the
Left, Or Did the Left Leave Me?
Imitating the Enemy
In
Hebrew, "Uterus" Means "Compassion"
The
American Feminist, Winter 1997-1998 Women's Right to Know laws give women
time to reflect upon information that is material to their health and well-being,"
says Judith Koehler, senior legislative counsel for Americans United for Life.
Koehler, who has been instrumental in helping states pass legislation to ensure
women receive the information they need to make an informed decision before
having an abortion, goes on to say, "We know - from evidence offered at
trials, testimony of women who have had abortions, and from exposes that have
been written - that women do not receive adequate counseling before having an
abortion. Medical standards are usually set by the medical community. In the
abortion industry, there are currently few, if any, adequately applied standards
of information for women. Many women do not even see the doctor who will be
performing the abortion until they are on the surgical table, let alone know
physical or psychological risks of abortion." "Women's Right to Know laws are
necessary for a number of reasons," explains Koehler. "They empower
women to make informed decisions. Women are told of alternatives to abortion
and receive information regarding pre- and post-natal care." These laws
educate women by offering them information on the abortion method to be used
and its risks, as well as information on paternity establishment and child support.
Women learn that the state has printed materials available that describe the
development of a fetus and list agencies that offer alternatives to abortion.
Women receive information about the psychological impact of abortion as well
as an increased risk of breast cancer that has been documented among post-abortive
women. This information must be offered to the woman at least 24 hours before
the abortion. They do not have to accept the materials if they do not want them.
Right to Know materials provide women the information they need to make real
choices by letting them know of resources that are available. The constitutionality of Women's Right
to Know laws was upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. According
to Koehler, Ohio, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Michigan
all have Women's Right to Know laws similar to that of Pennsylvania. Louisiana,
Wisconsin, Kansas, Montana and Indiana also have comprehensive informed-consent
laws. In the past two years, 15 states have introduced Women's Right to Know
laws. Some states have enacted legislation, but the laws have been tied up in
litigation. Other states have various levels of informed consent. For example,
South Carolina requires that women be given adequate information but requires
only a one-hour waiting period. Koehler is optimistic about the outlook of Women's
Right to Know laws, noting that every state law that has been modeled after
Casey has been upheld in federal court. The Florida Women's Right to Know law
is currently in state court and is being challenged on state constitutional
"privacy" grounds. Although the law could likely survive a federal
court challenge, the Florida Supreme Court used the state privacy provision
to strike the law requiring parental consent for an abortion on a minor. Thus,
the future of the Women's Right to Know law in Florida state court is uncertain. Recognizing a patient's basic right
to information, opposing sides of the abortion debate have come together to
support these laws in some states such as Kansas and Louisiana. As a whole,
however, abortion advocates are adamantly opposed to Women's Right to Know laws.
They argue that women will have to make more than one trip to the abortion clinic,
placing an undue burden on the woman's right to obtain an abortion. This means
that women will have to take more time off work, perhaps have to stay overnight,
find additional child care, etc. In Casey, the court rejected these
arguments, stating, "The waiting period helps ensure that a woman's decision
to abort is a well-considered one, and rationally furthers the State's legitimate
interest in maternal health and in unborn life. It may delay, but does not prohibit,
abortion." Also, as Koehler points out, the same organizations that oppose
Women's Right to Know laws due to concerns that it may require more than one
trip to the abortion clinic advocate RU-486, which requires at least three trips
to the doctor. Abortion advocates also argue that
these laws are not effective because women will go to other states to have abortions.
"This is an argument for more Right to Know laws," states Koehler.
"We need to make sure every state has a Women's Right to Know laws to ensure
that regardless of which state the woman chooses, she will still receive the
information she needs to make an informed decision." However, most states
do not have abortion-reporting requirements, so it is difficult to assess whether
women are in fact going to other states for abortions. According to Koehler, we need a national
reporting requirement for abortion to adequately assess the impact of informed
consent. Women's Right to Know laws have already
begun to make an impact in reducing the number of abortions. "A recent
Michigan study showed that even though first-time abortions have decreased nationwide,
repeat abortions have increased, making up almost half of all abortions performed,"
Koehler asserts. Statistically, women who have had an abortion are at high risk
of experiencing the tragedy of abortion again. When women are educated about
alternatives, they are less likely to seek a first-time abortion, thereby reducing
the potential for multiple abortions in the future. Since the Pennsylvania Abortion
Control Act was put into effect three years ago, the state's abortion rate has
dropped among first-time clients by 18.5 percent. "The more information women are
given regarding the abortion procedure and alternatives, the more empowered
they will be to make decisions that will benefit their health as well as the
health of their child," Koehler said. Anne Brennan Reprinted from The American Feminist,
Winter 1997-1998 "Feminists for Life" is not an oxymoron, it's a redundancy. The reduplicative
nature of the phrase is evident in the basic tenets of feminism: That every
human being deserves the opportunity to develop into the best she or he is capable
of; and that each individual be respected, however minimal or great their development
may be. As a third generation anti-abortion feminist activist, I was raised to work
along with my sister and brother feminists in promoting a more socially responsible
world, a civilized world that repudiates injustice and violence. Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist and social theoretician who profoundly inspired
the developing philosophies of non-violence promoted and lived by Mahatma Gandhi
and The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated in his diary of 1852, "It
is true that slavery is an evil, but an extremely convenient evil." Pro-abortionists unwittingly have chosen to justify an evil based on convenience
rather than struggle honestly and intellectually with the philosophical, sociological,
and historical aspects of this momentous life-and-death issue. It is much more convenient to deny our individual and community responsibilities
for social order and the development of a civilized (i.e. non-violent) human
condition than to tackle head-on the challenges of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Through Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King, we are better able to understand the evil
inherent in any form of violence. The violence of abortion is indisputable. The philosophies of these three feminists help us perceive that the practice
of non-violence, inconvenient as it may be, can transcend political and cultural
boundaries and bring forth visionary, creative solutions to the most complex
of problems, including the problem of unwanted pregnancies. As an anti-abortion feminist activist, I am an enigma to many: to the women's
right activists who assume a pro-abortion position is a prerequisite for feminism;
and to the right-to-lifers who equate feminism with abortion on demand. Seeing
their neat, albeit specious, categories breached is disquieting, inconvenient.
Labels and categories enslave the mind and dampen intellectual curiosity, but
they certainly are convenient. So many would-be feminists, women who truly seek liberation, freedom, and justice,
abandon individualism while succumbing to peer group pressure. Independent research,
free thinking and critical analysis succumb to the comfort and security of conformity.
The male oppression they so diligently worked to eradicate is replaced, obsequiously,
by oppressive dominant groups. (As a member of the Phoenix Chapter of the National
Organization for Women, I've not been "officially" requested to relinquish
my membership, despite national president Molly Yard's unenlightened stand against
feminists making independent decisions free of dominant group oppression. Ohio
NOW forced Pat Goltz to give up her NOW membership, and she went on to co-found
Feminists for Life in 1972.) Intellectually responsible feminists choose not
to consult a laundry list of any group's position to know what to think and
what to say. Many early feminists evolved toward their understanding of the need to work
to establish equal rights for women throught their attempt to establish basic
human rights. Sarah and Angelina Grimke, the first women to attempt to speak
out publicly against slavery, soon learned they, as white women, were also slaves
being denied even their right to free speech. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia
Mott came to the brutal understanding of their own inequality when, solely based
on gender, they were prevented from speaking at a World Anti-Slavery convention
in London, despite being U.S. delegates. Feminists have always spoken out against racial injustice. Why do so many now
remain silent when the iniquitous relationship between racialism and pro-abortion
legislation is errantly unabashed? It is certainly easier for the white, male-dominated state legislature and
Congress to approve (i.e. encourage?) the elimination of the inconvenient fetuses
of poor women (i.e. women of color) than it is to work toward a) eliminating
poverty; b) increasing education standards for the poor; c) increasing employment
opportunities for the poor; d) providing daycare for the working poor; e) funding
serious research for improved contraception; and f) developing a long-range
plan to build a society that will provide adequate food, housing, and education
for all. It is certainly easier for individual, even feminist women, to support such
legislation than to insist each woman take control of the responsibility for
her own reproduction and conception prevention. History has proved that we cannot
depend on others to take responsibility for our conception decisions. As feminists, we must not continue to buy into the historically male world
view: the solution to sociological problems (e.g., poverty, overpopulation,
individual's sexual irresponsibility) is convenient violence-- suffered predominantly
by the world's poor. Historically, feminists have valued human need above the non-feminist world
view of "maximization of profits." Abortion is big business, bringing
handsome profits to the usual few: white, middle-class, educated. The vociferant,
well-meaning but misguided feminists who promote abortion serve as effective
marketing tools for those businesses making money from the agony of the poor. Our thesis bears repeating: "Feminists for Life" is not an oxymoron,
it's a redundancy. Dr. Maureen Jones-Ryan Feminists for Life of America Office Phone: (202) 737-FFLA E-mail Address:
info@feministsforlife.org |
