Pro-Life ladies (L-R) Jennifer, Stephanie, & Kristine at the Women’s March. Jan 21, 2017
When women first began marching and rallying in Washington, the vast majority of them opposed abortion. Victoria Clafin Woodhull, who in 1872 was America’s first female presidential candidate, viewed abortion as “equal to the killing of a person after birth.” This sentiment was shared by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, author of feminist newspaper The Revolution. On February 5, 1868, Stanton decried “the murder of children, either before or after birth,” and argued that “the remedy [is the] complete elevation and enfranchisement of woman.” Woodhull’s solution was nearly verbatim: “The remedy is in granting freedom and equality to woman.”
To the early feminists, abortion wasn’t part of the solution to women’s inequality. Instead, they argued, equality was the solution to abortion.
The 2017 Women’s March on Washington was supposed to unite women of all stripes in our ongoing battles for social, political, and financial equality. But when The Atlantic published an article about pro-life involvement in the march, feelings of unity over common ground quickly dissipated. March co-chair Bob Bland had enthused about the diversity of the event, its emphasis on “intersectional feminism,” and its inclusion of “voices that have previously been either marginalized or silenced.” But within hours of the article’s publication, pro-life group New Wave Feminists was struck from the list of official march partners after a number of people complained. It seems some people prefer “diversity” that marches only to their own rhythm.
Never mind that Americans largely oppose abortion beyond the first trimester. A recent Marist poll found that as many as 80% of women and 6/10 of all who identify as pro-choice favor restrictions later in pregnancy. And according to a 2016 Pew Research study, 40% of American women believe abortion should be mostly illegal, while most Americans oppose tax-funding of abortion. But when NARAL and Planned Parenthood became the primary sponsors of the Women’s March, apparently they got to define feminism for all of us.
Pro-life women nonetheless participated in the Women’s March, despite our disappointment with the organizers’ treatment of NWF and with their recent addition of abortion support among their “unity principles.” The presence of pro-life groups at the march was for the most part well received. Joining NWF in the 500,000-strong crowd were members of Pro-Life Humanists, Life Matters Journal, Consistent Life, and Democrats for Life.
Pro-lifers attended the Women’s March because we agree with the mission on the march’s website: to “stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.” We also stand with the principle of non-violence, and agree that “Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of all forms of violence against our bodies.” But we reject the violence of abortion, and include the very youngest in our list of marginalized humans worth defending.
Ironically, a Women’s March promo video appears at first glance to agree with us. “Because my life matters” says a line-up of women. “And so does hers,” replies a visibly pregnant woman as she points to her abdomen. Except pro-life feminists think the fetal girl’s value shouldn’t hinge on the abstract concept of “wantedness” nor on her age-based capacities, which have her temporarily dependent and vulnerable through no doing of her own.
“Her life matters” … but only if the bigger and stronger people decide it does?
It comes down to this: forty years of abortion hasn’t broken the glass ceiling. Women all too often “choose” abortion because they feel they have no other choice. We can ALL unite in fighting for non-violent solutions like paid parental leave, equal pay, a living wage, national daycare, job protection, better accommodations for pregnancy/nursing/parenting, better sex-ed and birth control, as well as for rights for LGBTQIA, immigrants, and the disabled.
When Alice Paul, author of the 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, declared abortion “the ultimate exploitation of women,” she voiced what countless women still feel today. When you hear a woman say “I’m having an abortion because I don’t have any other choice” that’s not a herald of freedom and liberation. It’s a sign that society needs to work harder to elevate women to a place where our fertility isn’t a handicap!
Pro-life feminists will continue to march and to fight for a society in which female bodies don’t have to be just like never-pregnant male bodies in order to succeed in life. The remedy is still “the elevation and equality of women”, and society owes women better than the violent destruction of their youngest dependents!
As the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians put it: “None of us are free until all of us are free, with all our rights intact and guaranteed, including the basic right to live without threat or violence.” Non-violence and equality — regardless of gender, age, or location — is something well worth marching for!
Thanks for a good perspective on pro-life women at the Women’s March.
“We can ALL unite in fighting for . . . paid parental leave [etc.]”
Well, such social reforms would open up a choice for life which many women feel does not exist. (As you say, “Women all too often ‘choose’ abortion because they feel they have no other choice.”) Thus many women who today do not choose what we pro-lifers believe to be the correct choice (life), would begin to voluntarily choose it. Nevertheless, we don’t feel that that correct choice (for life) should be merely voluntary.
(“Choice” can be used descriptively or prescriptively: “There is a choice” means that there are possibilities, which we desire. “There should be a choice” recommends a policy that we oppose.)
I’d like to ask something about how best to materialize some of the social reforms that you list — those affecting pregnant women, mothers and children. In “Next Steps for the Pro-Life Feminist Movement” ( http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/02/next-steps-for-pro-life-feminist.html ) we suggested that such reforms will be more difficult to secure as long as abortion remains legal, because securing the reforms will require social pressure, and that pressure will not build up while abortion remains an easy way out. Legal abortion is an “escape valve” for the pressure that would be necessary. Would you agree with that?
Pro lifers have a habit of exceptionalising everything and this article was no different.
You make so many bold assertions, without much evidence to back them up.
So you claim that women feel ‘forced’ to get abortions. How about the fact that they enjoy having control over their own bodies?
You also claim that the unborn fetus is a person. Prove this.
Hi Rekha, Thanks for your comments! Sorry it’s taken so long to get back to you.
As to your question about women feeling forced, that’s not our merely our claim but evidenced by Allan Guttmacher institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, which we’ve linked to in other articles. Their numbers show that the primary reasons women have abortions pertain to external circumstances. Poverty, lack of support from partner or family, baby not being compatible with career or education etc all factor very high on the list of reasons. Wanting control over their own bodies doesn’t even show up on the list. It’s a meaningless ideal if women who might otherwise have their children can’t choose to remain pregnant in a society that doesn’t support motherhood and pregnancy.
Personhood is a social and legal term. The universal declaration of human rights grants personhood and the right to life to all members of the human race. Biologically speaking, human bodies begin to exist at fertilization. So if the unborn are members of the human race then they should be granted personhood as well. At very least they should be protected from the active and intentional ending of their lives.
To the list of early feminists who viewed abortion as killing I would add Margaret Sanger, who largely started the birth control movement in the United States and whom Planned Parenthood still considers their founder. Here is an article that does a deep dive into her views on abortion, containing over 5,000 of her own words with context and cited sources: https://fecundity.blog/reproduction/margaret-sanger-on-abortion-in-her-own-words.html.
Thank you! We hope to write an article about Sanger in the future! She really does get treated unfairly by most pro-lifers!