Feminists for Life?

Are they really feminists? John Roberts wife is a bigshot with them.

And no, they're not feminists. They're bastardizing that word. Here's some info:

Roberts’ Wife Was Board Member of “Feminists for Life”

Though John Roberts’ views on privacy and reproductive rights are still unknown (like so much about the nominee), Roberts’ wife is a prominent anti-choice activist.

Jane Sullivan Roberts has extensive ties to the conservative group Feminists for Life. As late as 1998, Mrs. Roberts was the group’s Executive Vice President. In 2001, she was identified as the “FFL board counsel,” and in the Summer 2002 FFL quarterly, The American Feminist, Roberts is listed as a member of the “Elizabeth Cady Stanton Circle” of fundraisers, who have raised between $1,000-$2,499 for the organization.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/20/roberts-wife/

people think they are the good guys.

That Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton was part of? Or the "Center for Immigration Studies" think tank that's really a front for a white supremacist org?

Seems to be SOP for the Repukes: You have to misrepresent the ugliness of what you really are behind that mask.

the reason they have to do this is because, overwhelmingly, THE WORLD IS LIBERAL. If they were so righteous and in tune with the world, they'd be able to call themselves "Abortion Doctor Killers", "The Racist Foundation of North America", "Environmental Destruction Inc." etc...

those names.
These women are not feminists.
They're regressionists.

is PRO-abortion. we don't want abortions to happen, but we believe a woman should have the right to make that choice if she is faced with that decision.

ms. roberts is a liar and a propagandist like the rest of the anti-choice nutso's.

The fact of the matter is, some advocates fancy the procedure to be congruent with, say, having a root canal. I'm certainly not one of them, but they do exist.

Here's a link to a DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x1687

and that would include mandatory abortions for the poor and other "undesirable" elements of society. Generally, these would be the kind of people who vote Republican because they hate everybody else and are selfish and "don't wanna pay taxes for a 'welfare queen's' babies."

So, if you're gonna pick on people who support abortion rights, don't pick on us liberals because I would bet you dollars to donuts none of them here would suggest that some women "ought to be required to have abortions."

I didn't say anything about posters supporting forced abortions; rather, I provided a link that refuted the poster's claim that "We don't want abortions to happen." The fact is, some here see no ethical or moral quandaries in this procedure, and my intention was to point this out.

procedure?

They are entitled to think what they like. Why is it so offensive to people that there are some people who are so pragmatic that they see nothing wrong with abortion?

I've got to go see this for myself. Is there mission to trick left women into being anti-choice? It has that stink to it from this distance. "Okay, gals, we're going to name our fundraising circles after famous feminists: $2-3 will be the Andrea Dworkin Gaggle. $3-10 will be the Bella Abzug Klatsch. $10-25 will be the Gloria Steinhem Sewing Circle..."

for big donors to an organization like that.

Stanton was even more forceful in her stance against abortion than Susan B. Anthony:

She classified abortion as a form of "infanticide." The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b4elizabethcstanton_p2al.htm


The Woman's Bible
The Complete Text in Two Volumes
by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Other Members of the Revising Committee as Named with Their Comments al.

http://www.undelete.org/library/library0041.html

They are a non-religious, non-sectarian organization.

http://feministsforlife.com/FAQ/index.htm#religiousaffiliation

fundraising group?

On a sidenote: saw a bumper sticker today among a pro-life group that said "It's ???? ( couldn't see the word) to decide that a Chld Must DIE so that you can live as you wish."

I immediately thought about the gas-guzzling American SUVs in the parking lot and then I thought of the images of Iraqi children, blood-soaked and lifeless in their parents' arms. And I thought of the mothers of sons and daughters, crying over their deaths because their wonderful Pro-life government denied them body armour while saying loudly, "bring it on!" and because assholes who claim to be Pro-life would rather have a goddamn tax break than properly protect their nation's soldiers.

Funny how only certain lives matter to some people. The zygote in America is more beloved to the Republican than the five-year-old beloved by her family in the Middle East or the twenty-five year-old beloved by his mother in the Midwest. Fucking hypocrites...

They aren't a religious organization. They have a viewpoint on abortion and apparently Stanton's views were the same on that subject. What she said about religion or the Bible is immaterial to that subject. I imagine Stanton wrote about a lot of other things too that they didn't include.

Matters to me, though.

It's the same thing as Southern Baptists claiming to believe in Jesus - who said to Love your enemies - and then turning around and justifying killing little Iraqi kids because suddenly Southern Baptists think war is wonderful.

Jesus isn't any part of that equation, and Staunton wouldn't be part of this fake organization, religious or not. If you're going to use someone's name to justify yourself, you should understand who and what they stood for.


That matters. Though in this world you can prostitute anyone's name you wish these days. Especially if you're a Republican....

"femi-nazis"? Or is that title reserved for Democrats only?

Had to stop watching "Raymond" because of her. Just could not look at her without getting nauseous.

when i found out he and hannity where friends.

which is a shame cause I love Sideshow Bob.

came out of the "I;m a crazy Rightwinger" closet. She LOVED that show.

I've sadly quit watching "King of Queens" since Leah Remini shot off her mouth recently about the Tom Cruise-Brooke Shields. (note to Leah: you CAN'T be a SCientologist AND a Catholic at the same time, no matter what you say. Xenu was NOT at Golgotha. Ask the Pope about this.)

Probably more in style than physical resemblance. Marilyn Quayle actually looked like Lily Tomlin.

this quote is on their site:

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."

I don't know the context (and i intend to find it) but something tells me that in 1889, Anthony was not talking about abortion.

and ignore or alter words said by the same person that go counter to the point they want to prove.

So very, very typical. They have done it so many times that we cannot even keep track of it.

Their arrogance is so outrageous that they do not even care if their deceit is found out. By that time, they have fooled enough people to have made the lie worthwhile.
It is like the slander on the front page, and the correction on page 10.

She was, as a matter of history, opposed to abortion. Some other quotes of hers from her publication, The Revolution

"No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

"Much as I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression, I cannot believe ... that such a law would have the desired effect. It seems to me to be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil, and destroy it.

To my certain knowledge this crime is not confined to those whose love of ease, amusement and fashionable life leads them to desire immunity from the cares of children: but is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed, and in whose hearts the maternal feeling is pure and undying. What, then has driven these women to the desperation necessary to force them to commit such a deed? This question being answered, I believe, we shall have such an insight into the matter as to be able to talk more clearly of a remedy."


Elizabeth Cady Stanton also held similar views:

classified abortion as a form of "infanticide." The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library

"There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?"
The Revolution, 1(10):146-7 March 12, 1868

There are other quotes and they're all easily verified with Google. I don't think they are cherry picking. The early feminists for the most part were also fervently anti-abortion. But they were also more in favor of attacking the root causes than simply outlawing it (though many of them favored both).

...for the most part they seemed to be more the opinion of the writer than the actual quotes from SBA herself. She called it "child-murder" in an editorial of her newsletter The Revolution

"Much as I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression, I cannot believe ... that such a law would have the desired effect. It seems to me to be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil, and destroy it.

To my certain knowledge this crime is not confined to those whose love of ease, amusement and fashionable life leads them to desire immunity from the cares of children: but is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed, and in whose hearts the maternal feeling is pure and undying. What, then has driven these women to the desperation necessary to force them to commit such a deed? This question being answered, I believe, we shall have such an insight into the matter as to be able to talk more clearly of a remedy."

"No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

She, by her own words, seemed to feel that merely making it illegal wouldn't solve the overall problem, but she did wish to see it suppressed and had no qualms calling women who did it "guilty".

Sounds to me like SBA wanted to make the world better for mothers to have and raise their kids.

Breathing the air that's all cleaned up by the "Clear Skies Initiative."

Camping in places protected by the "Healthy Forests Act"

And raising their children courtesy of the "No Child Left Behind Act."

I read some of the stuff on their site, and some of it is reasonable, some outrageous.

For example, a key argument of theirs is "women deserve better (than abortion)" This is a good point. If abortion is a problem because women can't afford or don't have the help/support they need to raise a baby, that is a symptom of society gone wrong. Abortion is not a cure for society's problems.

They also state pro-choice organizations and abortion providers don't give women the facts about links between abortion and breast cancer (yes, they promote that myth) or the long term psychological affects of abortion. Feminists for Life claim the pro-choice side condemns counseling centers as fake clinics and that abortion providers are trying to strong arm women into having abortion.

They also indicate that women may be coerced into abortions by spouses/boyfriends who don't want to deal with the child (or paying for it). And that in the late 1960's feminist groups which had previously been opposed to abortion were manipulated into supporting abortion rights as a key platform. It is a conundrum of feminism, how can we claim to be strong and equal if we are always playing the victim? But Feminists For Life tend to play up the "women are victims"

But they have a point, women deserve better than getting into a situation where she feels abortion is the only option. Why aren't we doing more to eradicate poverty and educate women about birth control? Why isn't there a better network of support for women who want to keep their babies but need help? But Feminists for Life fail to recognize that most people calling themselves Pro-Life oppose birth control and social programs that would really help these women.

Feminists for Life also opposes euthenasia, I believe even if some one has a living will.

but if your insurance won't pay for it or you're working for minimum wage and trying to support a kid or 2 already, there's no way you can afford it.

But, of course, if groups like this get their way and overturn RvW, outlawing of birth control is next.

Why don't women have better access to birth control?

And while some people who call themselves Pro Life believe in access to birth control, the majority (or at least most vocal) do not.

But I can't stand the crap about abortion victimizing women. What about being "forced" to bear child after child? Doesn't that victimize women? Isn't that also bad for their children, not just health wise, but because the mother cannot give each child as much individual attention when she has too many?

ones she wasn't ready to bear.

"Feminists for Life" are against birth control and instead says women should not have sex in situations where they couldn't raise the kid if they got pregnant.

From one of their publications:

"Since FFL's mission is based on life beginning at conception, there is no FFL polic on contraception except when it presents a threat to a woman's health....FFL's mission begins at conception, not before...

FFL focuses on the problems that women face during a pregnancy, planned or unplanned."

and what forms of contraception do they believe threaten a woman's health?

...but they mention that people in FFL have all sorts of views regarding contraception. They are probably concerned about the news on Ortho-Evra (the contraceptive patch) and wasn't there a problem with the Norplant thing too? But their mission is about what happen at conception, not before.

you'd think "Feminists for Life" would make a page listing some types to use that they consider "safe" enough.

and one of the physicians, putting the risk into perspective, said that yes, the stroke risk with the patch is three times greater than it is for the Pill, but removing the patch and becoming pregnant is even riskier.

So these contraceptives that put a woman's health at risk are apparently less dangerous than a pregnancy. The FFL's opposition to them would then be based on...?

I ask, because them stating that their mission is about what happens after conception is a bit disingenuous, as some contraceptives work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg -- which makes me wonder if the FFL is actually against the Pill, but doesn't want to openly say so.

(Note: these are somewhat rhetorical questions; I don't expect you to defend their positions.)

are unlikely to be able to afford birth control and, if unable to obtain legal, safe abortions, will resort to back alley procedures, knitting needles, coat hangers, etc and will die or be horribly maimed in the process.

If their stand is to remove the 'need' for abortions, then they should be addressing these issues.

to support all the new mothers effected by their policies?

While they say "women deserve better than abortion" no where do they specify that they want increased funding for social programs.

:puffpiece: they seem mainly to appeal to emotion. i wonder where they get their funding from...something tells me it's not from individual donations.

i found their "we remember" page interesting...it seems they need to update their site


We Remember...
In each issue of The American Feminist we commemorate the lives of women lost to legal abortion. Our hearts go out to their families and loved ones.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/weremember/index.htm

but, only 13 women's names are lsited. not to diminish their deaths...but, a lot more women died when abortion was illegal.

they seem to devote a lot a energy to what one site calls "the unspoken pain of abortion."

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/120904women-who-died.html

Does any site list the number of women in the U.S. who died of complications from childbirth? I know it is dramatically lower than it was 100 years ago, but still. And do these women care about other medical malpractice, or only related to abortion? I know there are some staggering statistics on the number of people in the U.S. who die from medical errors. What about the indications that women are more likely to have health concerns dismissed by medical professionals, do they mention or campaign about that? I think I know the answer to that.

end of story. they may pay lip-service to a few other issues, but their basic goal is to eliminate choice.

that was my question to them- and is my question to anyone who says they are 'pro-life'-

If one wants to 'outlaw' abortion, and in the same breath cut welfare, food-stamps, govt. child-care and medical care for pregnant moms- then they are HYPOCRITES- they are pro 'fetus'- anti-born baby.

Ask them what they are doing about all the 'unadoptable' kids in foster care???? kids who want nothing other than a permenant 'home'-- a place to belong???? i am RABID on this issue having experienced a stint of 'family' foster care, poverty, (TANF) (medicaid) and being the adoptive mom of an incredible child- who was born to a woman using crack, alcohol, had a STD and no prenatal care whatsoever- and black-
Babies DIE for lack of human contact- nurses in some city hospitals seek out folks willing to touch and rock babies who are left in 'limbo' who experience 'failure to thrive' for lack of arms to hold them-

i can't support anyone who would take away the 'right' for a woman to make the choice not to bring an innocent child into a world where they stand LITTLE if any chance of having a life- but, i will give all i have to help any woman who desires to fight for her child, and her right to RAISE that child without SHAME- or BLAME or slandering her or her baby for not having been born into a life situation that allowed her to not have to 'beg' for the help of others- simply to live.

This 'scam' Feminists for life is geared towards 'upperclass' women who consider abortion.- They work on "college campuses" etc- (as they explained to me) well, i looked at the censcus for the year 2000- and if i recall correctly, only 28% of women in America go on to college- what good will these 'feminists' do for those who not only don't have the funds to go to college, never mind raise a baby???

i'm a raving lunatic on this issue- i can't support overturning Roe if this society isn't also willing to take their 'concern' beyond the womb- for baby AND Mother-

And even then, i can't say a woman should have to give birth,- if she chooses to end the pregnancy before the fetus can live outside of her body-

rant over- sorry to dump- i'm out of control lately.

...as their mission is to deal with the reasons most women get abortions to begin with...lack of financial and emotional support. They work to get more businesses to provide on-site or paid for childcare as a benefit to employees and so on. I've looked into these people before, though I don't have any of the material at my disposal right now, but they do support better social programs to help women and their children, planned or unplanned.

over the last 24 hours, asking them what specific programs they have for mothers who don't have the money to carry a child to term- Their answer was:

"You offer NO answers to my question of how women who have NO spouse, or
job are supposed to 'choose' life-???"

Yes, the response explained that Feminists for Life is dedicated to
systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion
--primarily lack of practical resources and support-- through holistic,
woman-centered solutions. If you are interested in learning more about the
nonviolent solutions we work on, please visit our website.

AND:
Feminists for Life does work. Since 1994, for example, Feminists for Life's College Outreach Program has been a catalyst for change on campuses across the country. FFL breaks through the rhetoric that pits women against their children and works-with people on both sides of the abortion issue-to foster creative solutions for pregnant and parenting students. FFL brings students, university administrators, campus heath clinic staff, residential life advisors, counselors, financial aid directors, and other members of the campus community together at non-confrontational Pregnancy Resource Forums to identify and evaluate resources for pregnant women and parents on campus and create a blueprint for progress. The Forums redirect energy from polarized debate to creative solutions like telecommuting and child care services. Since FFL began the program, Planned Parenthood reports that there is a 30% drop in abortions among college graduates.

Great for those who have already gotten a start in life- but of WHAT use to a 19yr old black woman working at Wendy's in Phillidelphia for $7.56 an hour, and living with her sister and her family in an apartment that can't even hold the existing occupants????

What do republicans say about 'social services?" Which "party" is it that believes in 'faith based' initiatives????-

Like i said, they may be of help to those who aren't 'terribly' needy- but what about those who are??? those whose babies often end up in foster care???- Where is the "advocacy" for them???? it is not at "feminists for life"- not in any way they can articulate to a person asking them to present their alternitives. Which i did- repeatedly- and got 'mombo jumbo' blah blah blah- not- answers- dodges.

why do I have a feeling they do most of their work at schools where the student population is painfully white?

their "advocacy for women" claims don't seem to be supported by anything as specific and concrete as their anti-choice efforts.
their message is seductive, particularly for those who ALREADY oppose abortion, but are reluctantly pro-choice...precisely because of the social services/support issue.
their "let's help women" meme is an emotional, feel-good message...and little else.
however, they are working diligently on the anti-choice portion of their message

some women, whether or not they can afford it, whether or not they have emotional support, just do not want to breed?

what if her birth control fails?

should she just be forced to squeeze it out and give it up for adoption, putting her own physical health and future mental well-being at risk?

Does "Feminists For Life" support this woman? do they support me?

They appear to be for life... but the life they're "for" is inside a pregnant woman, not the woman herself.

But I don't think your stance on one issue disqualifies you from being a feminist. If they support equal rights for women technically they're feminists.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

:eyes:

period.

if they believe women can't be trusted to make their own reproductive decisions? Doesn't sound very "feminist" to me.

one word: OXYMORON

Three More Words: Led By Morons

basically serving as Jones' handler through the whole sordid fiasco.

And now we find out that Mrs. Roberts is tied in with FFL, too. We already know that Roberts himself worked for the Starr Chamber.. hmmm... ved-dy in-te-res-ting...

but they do suck in a lot of women that do not like nor would ever have an abortion. I think being pro-choice is a political stance not a personal one.IMO

Terms like pro-abortion are just plain silly. Either a person is pro-choice or anti-choice, PERIOD! Why we let them frame the language and debate is beyond me. Same as censorship, one is pro-censorship or anti-censorship politically. Being anti-censorship doesn't mean you talk like a marine or like certain speech, it just means you don't want the government involved in regulating speech etc...

However, refuse to choose is a choice, a choice to be impotent, exploited and used.

Wonder what's up with that? Are they counting on molding impressionable minds, or on driving a wedge between the next generation of women on the issues of choice and feminism?

Remember the nazi breeding program?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

I'd point out that women that age often can't afford to raise the child themselves and are more likely to put it up for adoption than an older mother. I'd wonder whether an unstated goal of this organization is to increase the pool of healthy white newborns available for adoption.

Which goes back to the very idea of taking away the option of abortion takes away a lot of choices for women, including when to have children. I'd be curious to know how many elective abortions occur in women over 35 who have undergone genetic testing of the fetus.

an abortion because the fetus is severely deformed, but the problem might also be your own health, or simply that you can't afford another child.