This copyrighted paper (on pro-life ideology and female empowerment) was written for a Women's Studies class which I took in the Fall of 1997."
Building Bridges:
Pro-Life Ideology and
Female Empowerment
in a Feminist Organization
�1998 Maureen A. Barlow, unpublished
May be freely distributed as long as authorship and copyright information is included.
Introduction
Methodology
Findings:
� �History and Structure
� �Political and Social Activism
� �Philosophy
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendices C and D
Feminists for Life of America (FFLA, or simply FFL) is a grassroots organization comprised of self-identified feminists who are pro-life, or against abortion. FFL has its national headquarters in Washington, DC, and it has chapters or core groups (1) throughout the United States and Canada. They are also a member of the National Women's Coalition for Life, the Seamless Garment Network, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, and the Coalition for a Caring Society. (2) FFL is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
FFL was formed by Pat Goltz and Catherine Callaghan in 1972. Pat Goltz had been an active member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) before then, yet was adamantly opposed to NOW's decision to claim as feminism's main goal the legalization and acceptance of abortion. She was eventually expelled from NOW due to her pro-life views, and was joined by another NOW member, Callaghan, in solidarity to form a pro-life feminist organization. (3)
FFL's "mixing" of feminist philosophy with pro-life ideology may seem very intriguing to pro-choice feminists, especially in light of the history of feminism's second wave, but it's not a new concept. The 19th century suffragists, such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Emma Goldman, saw abortion as a societal evil in which women were the victims, preyed upon by (male) abortionists (see Appendix D for selected quotes from these women, published by FFL). FFL sees itself as continuing the legacy of these women. It considers abortion to be the ultimate wrong committed against women by a society that devalues and denigrates not only women, but also children. In describing what Feminists for Life is all about, Rosemary Oelrich Bottcher, FFL's president, says it is "profoundly pro-life and forthrightly feminist! Feminists for Life seeks to eliminate abortion, but we believe that the best way to do so is by enhancing the status of women...(T)he perceived necessity of abortion arises from the inferior status of women." (4)
In trying to achieve their goal of eliminating abortion, FFL seeks to provide women with the "other choices," meaning alternatives to abortion. Those alternatives include not only adoption, but changing the prevailing atmosphere so that women do not feel that they have to choose between their life and the life of their child, changing women's economic condition so that they no longer have to abort due to financial constraints, changing the largely female-unfriendly workplace so that a woman is not targeted for dismissal from her job due to pregnancy or inability to find decent affordable child-care. (5) The pro-choice rhetoric, FFL argues, doesn't provide women with a choice at all, if abortion is the only "choice" it offers. The pro-choice rhetoric falls short, they contend, if it doesn't include a thorough and honest analysis of abortion. As Serrin Foster, FFL's Executive Director, put it, "We must work systematically to address the factors that drive women to the personal tragedy of abortion." (6)
FFL works on other issues such as violence against women, specifically regarding legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, pay equity for women and minorities, welfare reform, as well as eliminating sexual harassment, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Discussing how abortion and welfare are often related, Kelly Jefferson of FFL says, "We encourage a lot of talk about how many women ...have abortions because they couldn't afford to have a baby if they didn't go on welfare, and they don't want to go on welfare because it's a lousy lifestyle." (7)
With that in mind, it would be hard for any pro-choice feminist to find fault with the organization. Indeed, according to Serrin Foster, many pro-choice (pro-choice being defined in this paper as the view that abortion should be legal, accessible to all women, and safe) women and men present at speeches and conferences sponsored by FFL, particularly on college campuses, agreed with most of their message.(8) Even feminists who consider themselves to be pro-choice often agree that abortion is not a panacea for women. Naomi Wolf is one of those feminists: "Of all the choices feminism offers, (abortion) is not a joyful identity to rally around." (9)
FFL is touted as feminist, as opposed to being simply a women's organization, such as some battered women's shelters or women's centers, which cater to the needs of all women, without espousing a feminist philosophy of some kind. FFL would argue that women deserve to be autonomous and empowered, and they need the tools to achieve this, tools which are often withheld from them in an androcentric society. However, as I will discuss below, their definition of female empowerment differs markedly from that of most other feminists.
In researching this organization, I have come to the conclusion that FFL subscribes to a unique brand of feminist philosophy. They appear to blend liberal feminist tenets with those of radical and socialist, yet I found it difficult to assign an exact label to them. My initial conclusion was that they were liberal feminist, yet I didn't feel that they upheld this philosophy entirely, nor did I feel the same way about FFL's take on other brands of feminism. So, lacking a firm conviction as to their exact feminist philosophy, I initially felt it safer to assign to them the label of liberal feminist. Upon further reflection, however, I feel that they do not subscribe entirely to any one brand of feminism. Instead, parts of their viewpoint can fall into any category.
At the same time, however, I see a part of their philosophical foundation as anti-feminist, although I wouldn't call FFL an anti-feminist organization. If I were asked to label them at all, my first inclination would be to say that they were mostly the 20th-century equivalent of domestic feminists. Their liberal feminist sensibilities can be attributed to their focus on legislative changes, as feminists working within the system. Their insistence on looking at welfare, workplace, and affordable childcare issues in a feminist light can be said to borrow from socialist feminism. The fact that they "believe in equal rights, yet...celebrate [the] differences" between women and men (10) can lead one tentatively to the label of radical feminist, although their focus on women's "life-giving capacity" as being the primary identity of women is not exactly conducive to an understanding of radical feminist theory. In addition, their tendency to lean towards domestic feminism is evidenced in their particular worldview (see below), being that a woman's greatest contribution to society rests almost exclusively on her procreative ability.
While the purpose and goals of Feminists for Life may seem laudable in terms of elevating the status of women, I see two problems inherent in their approach. First, there is a major obstacle hindering the manifestation of their "pro-woman/ pro-life" goals, at least in the short-term. Namely, the majority of pro-life discussion and much of the legislation is controlled by ultra-conservative forces, specifically the Religious Right. The powers-that-be in the pro-life movement, which does not include organizations such as FFL due to their feminism, have been deciding what gets talked about and who does the talking in the abortion debate. Those decisions are also being made mostly by male authorities in the pro-life position, who often have no concept of and no interest in the real needs of women on any issue, let alone abortion. Add to that the fact that espousing a feminist philosophy of any kind has proven, particularly over the past fifteen years, to be extremely difficult amidst this very conservative political and social climate. Fighting for a world in which women are valued members of society, in which women make empowered choices, will be nearly impossible without first addressing the problems present in the current discourse on abortion. Women, on both sides of the abortion debate, need to control the discourse.
In addition to the problem of discourse on the abortion issue, a problem which I do not see as being addressed adequately by FFL, there's the contradiction that I see in the way this organization views female empowerment, a concept which is the crux of feminist philosophy. This, I feel, is the most important problem of the two. It seems that this contradiction stems from their particular worldview, which they hold in common with "traditional" pro-life organizations and individuals ("traditional" meaning non-feminist). In terms of women, the foundation of this worldview is that their natural inclination is towards motherhood, and that they would unhesitatingly fulfill this reproductive destiny in the best of worlds. (11) In other words, women's nature is seen as being naturally toward the care and rearing of children, abortion being the main obstacle to the fulfillment of this natural course. Furthermore, the most contentious part of this worldview is the insistence on the personhood of fetuses, with rights that surpass those of women. I will discuss this in more detail below.
While FFL's criticisms of abortion and the abortion "industry" are often valid, their legislative goal is to eliminate abortion altogether, making it illegal. Of course, in order to make abortion a rare event, which both pro-life and pro-choice Americans mostly agree on as a goal, one must fight for the empowerment of women, which FFL attempts to do. In the "traditional" pro-life discourse, empowerment of women usually doesn't even enter the picture. Therefore, FFL's insistence on this empowerment first and foremost is a breath of fresh air. However, since not all women are against abortion, or view the act of abortion in the same way, eliminating this option, in my view, will not empower women.
�
For my research of this organization, I have relied on FFL's newsletter, The American Feminist, promotional brochures, and an interview with the contact person for the Massachusetts FFL core group, Kelly Jefferson (see note 1). Unfortunately, FFL is undergoing some major reorganizational efforts, and so no meetings or conferences are being planned for Massachusetts or the Northeast region until early 1998. Therefore, the only in-person conversation/interview available was the one with Jefferson, because travel to FFL's main office in Washington DC was not possible for this project. Since the interview with Jefferson took place in a private residence, as there is no office for the MA core group, there was no information to gather regarding the "look and feel" of an office. This information would have undoubtedly proved invaluable for the research of this paper, since the structure of an office often relates to the structure, or at least the philosophy, of an organization.
The interview with Kelly Jefferson took place in Shrewsbury, MA on a very rainy Sunday, November 2, 1997. Conducting the interview with me was Naomi Jacobson, a fellow student in the class, who also chose FFL as her research project. The questions that were used in the interview are noted in Appendix A.
In addition to an in-person interview, I had attempted to conduct an interview via e-mail with some of the staff, interns, and/or volunteers at the Washington DC office. I had e-mailed a list of questions to the office, suggesting that they could answer as many questions as they'd like, and then fax the responses to me. I was unable to obtain any responses within a reasonable period of time, and as of the date of this paper, I never did receive a response from the DC office regarding my questions. Therefore, Naomi Jacobson decided that we might obtain at least basic information if one of us simply phoned the DC office with a few questions. Still, we received only cursory information regarding the structure of the organization. In Appendix B, I have included the unanswered e-mail questions sent to the DC office. However, it should be noted that since the national office refused, at worst, to assist this project by providing information, or simply avoided, at best, answering the questions asked, much of the structure of the organization (in terms of structure of meetings and conferences, decision-making processes, etc.) remains an enigma.
The title of FFL's newsletter, The American Feminist, is the latest incarnation (since 1994), previous ones being Sisterlife and, earlier, Feminists for Life Journal. (12) The American Feminist is published four times a year, and in its pages are articles detailing legislative updates and successes, such as "South Carolina Bans Partial-Birth Abortions" (13) and "A Personal Perspective on the Violence Against Women Act" (14); opinion pieces on abortion, such as "A Mere Three Inches from Equal Protection" (15); as well as articles describing FFL's activities, such as "Northwestern University: Putting College Outreach to the Test". (16)
I decided to rely heavily on FFL's newsletter because, albeit, like most newsletters and newspapers, it included a disclaimer about the opinions expressed therein (17), it gave me a good representation of the views and opinions of some of the staff and members of Feminists for Life, as well as some of the activities in which they engage as an organization.
In addition to newsletters, I was kindly provided brochures by Kelly Jefferson and the national office. These brochures (shown in Appendix C) represent the outreach efforts of Feminists for Life, outreach that is primarily directed to college populations, both male and female. Included in these brochures are selected quotes of the "feminist foremothers" opposing abortion, FFL's informal statement of purpose (see note 2), information on support during a crisis pregnancy (18), and a description of FFL's goals. (19)
Feminists for Life also maintains a website on the Internet (20), which I had used as a starting point in my research. This website includes many articles from FFL's newsletter, as well as a suggested reading list, an online version of one of their brochures, and a list of pro-life quotes from 19th century feminists (see Appendix D).
�
Findings
Feminists for Life of America celebrated its 25th anniversary this year: 1997. As mentioned above, FFL was founded by Pat Goltz and Catherine Callaghan, former members of NOW, expelled from that organization due to their pro-life views. FFL began as a small organization, supported in the early years by the Ohio Right to Life group, of which Goltz and Callaghan were members. The Ohio Right to Life even helped out with member recruitment, referring "many pro-lifers with 'latent feminist tendencies'" to the fledgling FFL. (21)
FFL began as a loosely organized group of pro-life women, with chapters appearing in many states throughout the country. It currently operates as a classic hierarchical organization, with an Executive Director, a President, an Executive Vice President, a Treasurer, and a Secretary. FFL also possesses a Vice President of Public Policy, a Vice President of Chapter Development, a Vice President of Commun-ications, and a Vice President of Resource Development. Production of FFL's newsletter is also organized in classic hierarchical form, with an Editor, Associate Editors, a Cover Designer, and Design/Layout Personnel.
Washington DC is the current (and most likely final) home of Feminists for Life's national office. Initially, the organization's office was located wherever its president resided. Back in the late 1980's, when Kelly Jefferson first joined the group, the office was located in Kansas City, Missouri, home to FFL's president at that time. In the early 1990's, FFL moved its national office to Washington DC, became an official 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and hired an executive director. (22) The move to DC was instrumental in establishing the political activism of the organization, as they were seeking to develop their legislative program on Capitol Hill.
FFL currently has 25 chapters, located throughout the United States and Canada. (23) As mentioned above, Massachusetts does not have a chapter as yet; it has a "core group," headed by Kelly Jefferson. This group, along with other core groups throughout the country, is undergoing the process of fulfilling the legal requirements to become an official chapter of the non-profit FFL.
Political and Social Activism� �(TOC)
Since moving their national office to Washington DC, Feminists for Life has been able to increase the effect of their political activism, mostly by being involved in legislation. FFL works mostly on abortion issues, but it has also been a salient force in legislation regarding welfare reform, violence against women, capital punishment, euthanasia, and legislation affecting children and families.
For example, FFL was a critical voice in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Members of FFL had been active on Capitol Hill regarding VAWA, writing letters, signing petitions, and sharing personal stories of gender-based violence. (24) FFL worked in a coalition, which included NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, among other organizations, for four years to pass the VAWA legislation. (25)
FFL often works in coalitions with other organizations on other issues. For example, the Massachusetts FFL core group teamed up with the Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty to testify against capital punishment in legislative hearings in Massachusetts. (26) In working on various issues, FFL and other organizations with which they act in coalitions, act according to a concept called "consistent ethic of life," a term coined by the late Cardinal Bernadin, meaning pro-life (anti-abortion), anti-capital punishment, anti-euthanasia, as well as anti-war, anti-nuclear armament, etc. That is to say, these organizations are against the taking of life in each of these circumstances. Each organization in the coalition will not necessarily work directly on all these issues, but they will not act in contradiction to the "consistent ethic of life" principle. For example, the coalition will not include an organization that is pro-life and pro-death penalty. (27)
In summary, in all of these issues, FFL feels that its mission is to bring to them a pro-woman perspective, and sometimes that entails working on legislation with members of Congress that have a tendency to support misogynist, or at least androcentric, legislation. A perfect example of this is FFL's efforts on welfare reform legislation. Many members of Congress who are against abortion have consistently cut welfare spending, and introduced family caps (financial penalties on having children over a certain limit). FFL tried to work with these members of Congress, speaking to their pro-life ideology by showing how many women have abortions because welfare is not a viable option for them. If welfare, or a public benefits system, were more conducive to women's needs, they would argue, then fewer abortions would be performed due to financial constraints. (28) Thus, FFL's political activities are directed, in theory, towards elevating women's status and improving their situation.
To reiterate, Feminists for Life is a "pro-woman/pro-life" organization, which means that the staff, officers and members subscribe to what they call "the core feminist principles of justice, non-violence and non-discrimination" (29), while at the same time being fervently against abortion. According to Kelly Jefferson, FFL feels that it is important to see both "women's issues from a pro-life perspective, (and) pro-life issues from a women's perspective" (30), and to bring these perspectives to other discussions taking place in a feminist forum. FFL's mission is to eliminate women's perceived need for abortion, thereby eliminating abortion altogether. As mentioned earlier, they feel that abortion is a form of exploitation of women, and that women's perceived need for abortion arises from their inferior status in society, and the denigrated status of mothers generally.
Feminists for Life's definition of the core feminist principles being mainly those listed above, however, leaves one to ask the question, "Where are the women?" Being against violence and discrimination, and believing in justice can just as easily be attributed to leftist politics in general, especially those of the late 1960's. Such principles are not the exclusive property of feminism. What makes feminism distinct from other social movements is its insistence on the agency of women in effecting social change that specifically eliminates their oppression (and the oppression of others, as well). I would assume that FFL knows this; however, its preoccupation with women's "life-giving capacity" serves to obfuscate the issues surrounding women's oppression and the work needed to end it.
Nevertheless, the political activism conducted by Feminists for Life is promising, since, given their arguments, one can (hopefully) see how abortion can be, and often is, exploitative of women. Women feel either coerced or forced into abortions for a variety of reasons, and many no doubt feel that their lives will be ruined or severely constrained if they give birth to a child, whether wanted or not. One can certainly predict that, if the status of women were elevated, a goal sought by any feminist, the incidence of abortion would likely decrease dramatically. As has been pointed out by many pro-choice feminists, including Naomi Wolf quoted above, abortion is not the peak of women's liberation. Almost anyone would agree that abortion can be very traumatic for women. At least, in one instance, this analysis by pro-choice feminists has been acknowledged by FFL, on the back of one of their newsletters. (31) However, the maintenance of the legal status of abortion is tenaciously guarded by pro-choice feminists, including myself. Pro-choice feminists feel that allowing abortion as an option for women is extremely important, and is a part of reproductive freedom. Yet, the object of this paper is not to debate the moral or ethical issues surrounding abortion. What I am trying to achieve in the writing of this paper, as far as an analysis of FFL's strategy and goals from a feminist perspective, is the comparison of pro-choice goals with those of pro-life, using this organization as an example.
Comparing FFL with other pro-life organizations is not a simple task. First, FFL is a feminist organization, which is not the case for any other pro-life organization. Despite the contradictions I see in their pro-life and feminist ideologies, I do believe that FFL is feminist. By contrast, most other pro-life organizations are more anti-feminist than neutral. Second, much of the "anti-choice" rhetoric of these other pro-life organizations is present, albeit hidden, in the rhetoric of FFL. (32) For example, included in their denouncement of abortion is their belief that abortion is murder, the taking of innocent human life. They use all the keywords and phrases that "traditional" pro-life organizations use, such as 'unborn child,' 'aborted women' (referring to women who have had an abortion, although we understand this to mean not that the women are aborted, as this phrase literally implies, but their fetuses), and referring to fetuses as people. M. Jean Heriot provides an interesting analysis of the phenomenon of equating fetuses with persons, and the clash of rights that ensues:
"...we must, when looking at such highly charged cultural debates, examine whose voices are heard in the discourse about personhood" (emphasis in original). (33)
"...definitions stating that personhood begins at conception do not take into sufficient account the legal and moral status of women as individuals--individuals with rights that should outrank those of the fetus." (34)
In defending women's rights, as well as being against abortion, FFL states, "We defend women's rights and believe that they do not come at the expense of others, especially those of our own preborn children." (35) The flip side of this argument would result in the following scenario: For a fetus' rights to be realized, it is acceptable if they come at the expense of a woman's rights. Of course, FFL would argue that abortion is not a woman's "right" to begin with, but I'd like to concentrate on the issue of rights at the expense of others. What exactly does FFL mean by this? In what instances, besides the abortion issue, does a woman's rights come at the expense of others? Why use that analogy? The age-old reason for the rejection of women's rights has been that it interferes with men's ability to assert their dominance. Framing an opinion on abortion by stating that women's rights shouldn't come at the expense of others seems a little anti-feminist, especially since our society expects women to ignore their own needs in order to serve others.
FFL (or at least some of their members) believes that human life begins at the moment of conception. (36) This is something that "traditional" pro-life groups have asserted all along. Again, my purpose is not to support or refute this assertion, but to point out that, while FFL subscribes to feminist ideals, its analysis of abortion goes beyond the exploitation of women. Its analysis also betrays the fact that it is enmeshed in a particular worldview, one that is not held by everyone. This worldview, part of which is that a woman's "life-giving capacity" is so important in her life that it transcends all other concerns, is not one that empowers women. And it is the clashing of worldviews that is responsible for the heated contention emanating from the abortion debate. This, I believe, is what Heriot was referring to when she said that we must examine whose voices are heard in this debate.
Furthermore, while it doesn't state it directly in any of its literature, I've determined that FFL feels that abortion is wrong in any circumstance, including rape, incest, and threat to the health of the mother. These "exceptions" have been almost a bedrock in most of the discourse on abortion; that is to say, most pro-life individuals (and, obviously, all pro-choice individuals) believe that abortion should be legal in these three circumstances. However, in two articles from their earlier newsletter Sisterlife, FFL members provide an interesting, yet disturbing analysis of abortion after rape. For example, the article "Abortion: The Second Rape," was written by a woman who aborted a pregnancy that resulted from an event that "had an element of sexual assault" in it. (37) This article is very engaging, and provides some wonderful insights, particularly to someone such as myself, since I have been volunteering at a rape crisis center as a hotline counselor for several years. Some of those insights, taken as direct quotations from the article, are:
"Abortion because of rape tends to be more traumatic than the average abortion. One reason is that the woman feels that there is no option but to abort, and this compounds the trauma of having had no choice about sex." (38)
"(The woman) is often revictimized by attitudes which assume that a rape victim should be aborted [have an abortion], and doubts that she was actually raped." (39)
The author of this article has a definite sense of the layers of victimization following a sexual assault.
However, since FFL as an organization seems to feel that abortion should be made illegal (see Bottcher, "Feminists for Life: Who Are We?" for the basis of my conclusion), I can't help but wonder how eliminating at least the "choice" to abort a pregnancy as a result of rape could possibly empower women? In other words, how might a woman be empowered by requiring her to go through forty weeks of pregnancy to give birth to a child conceived against her will? If a woman decides that she wants to continue such a pregnancy, then so be it. Yet, to require this of all women, if abortion is to be illegal, seems a bit disempowering.
Again, there is the assumption in this article that the woman has no rights over the fetus, an assumption prevalent in all pro-life debates, not just that of Feminists for Life, and that anyone who does not agree with this assumption is selfish, uncaring (towards fetuses), and immoral. Debating fetal rights "vs." female rights (as if this fight were not socially constructed by patriarchal values to begin with), however, is a subject best left to another paper, but I want to suggest that calling for the illegal status of abortion, even in the event of rape, etc., is not going to empower women, and it will certainly not eliminate abortion. (40)
Lastly, at one point in the article, the author mentions a Sandanista woman pregnant as a result of rape by a Somocista guard. This young woman gave birth to this child, feeling that to do otherwise was to kowtow to patriarchal values. Yet the author concludes "that to give life and love to the child was proof of woman's ability to endure the rigors of war and participate fully in the revolution" (emphasis added). (41) Focusing on female empowerment, I would say that I can think of myriad other ways in which I would want my endurance tested! Rape by a soldier is not one of those ways. I am not implying, however, that the author, or FFL, is suggesting that rape "builds character," since, I am assuming, this is only a paraphrasing of the young Sandanista woman's words. Yet, this is what was chosen as an example, to show that women shouldn't abort in the case of rape, because even this unfortunate woman chose not to abort. This can be extended by their argument, therefore, to mean that no woman should have an abortion.
Feminists for Life is an intriguing organization. While subscribing to feminist principles, they maintain a pro-life position on abortion. As mentioned above, I feel that FFL subscribes to a unique feminist philosophy. They mix the philosophies of liberal, radical, and socialist feminists, yet they do not fit neatly into any one category. They strive to eliminate oppression of women, maintaining that the way to do this is through eliminating economic inequality and domination of women by men. They see this inequality and domination as the primary sources of oppression of women, and they conclude that abortion is a result of this oppression. That is to say, if this oppression of women didn't exist or were ended, we would have "a world where abortion would be unthinkable." (42)
FFL provides brilliant analyses of abortion, and their arguments against it due to women's oppression are well made, for the most part. However, the one thing about this organization that bothers me, as a pro-choice feminist, is their insistence that abortion be illegal. Related to this is the fact that they participate in an abortion debate already structured around anti-feminist sentiment, much of which is provided by ultra-conservatives and the Religious Right. Perhaps FFL should stop thinking of itself as a "non-traditional" pro-life group.
Despite my concerns as to the direction of much of their discourse, I'm glad that Feminists for Life exists. They are providing some sense to an otherwise sense-lessly hostile debate. More readings offering a thorough analysis of abortion from a woman's (and, even, feminist) perspective, including those of FFL, would be a wonderful addition to the class for which this paper was written, "Feminist Critiques of American Society." Offering feminist analysis on this subject, on the grand scale, would do wonders to eliminate the appalling misogyny in the debate. And one thing should be remembered: In a world where women were empowered, where women counted and made the world in their own image (rather than seeing phallocentric ideals plastered all over the universe), we wouldn't have an abortion debate at all. There wouldn't be two opposing sides to this most personal of "women's issues," sides that continually hiss and claw at each other. In short, we wouldn't need to build any bridges.
* * *
1. A core group is defined by Kelly Jefferson, contact person for the Massachusetts core group of FFL, as a group working to meet the legal qualifications needed to become a state chapter.
2. FFL's brochure, "Who Are We?" (see Appendix D).
3. Bottcher, Rosemary Oelrich, "Celebrating 25 Years of Pro-Life Feminism", The American Feminist (FFL's newsletter), vol. 4, no.3 (Summer 1997).
4. Bottcher, "Feminists for Life: Who Are We?" The American Feminist, vol. 1, no.2 (Fall 1994), p.16.
5. Kelly Jefferson, interview, Shrewsbury, MA, November 1997.
6. Foster, Serrin, "Enlightened Choices: How to Make Abortion Rare," The American Feminist, vol.4, no.1 (Spring 1997), p.2.
7. K. Jefferson interview.
8. Ehrhard, Elise, "College Pro-Lifers Get Creative," The American Feminist, vol.4, no.3 (Fall 1997), p.6.
9. Wolf, Naomi, Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How to Use It, (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1993), p.128.
10. FFL's brochure, "Who Are We?".
11. My thanks to Joanne Southwell for suggesting the concept of "reproductive destiny" to describe FFL's view regarding female empowerment.
12. R. O. Bottcher, "Celebrating 25 Years of Pro-Life Feminism."
13. Kiniorski, Kerri-Ann, "South Carolina Bans Partial-Birth Abortions," The American Feminist, vol.4, no.2 (Summer 1997).
14. Buchanan, Juda, "A Personal Perspective on the Violence Against Women Act," The American Feminist, vol.1, no.2 (Fall 1994).
15. Rieg, Carol, "A Mere Three Inches From Equal Protection," The American Feminist, vol.2, no.3 (Fall 1995).
16. Conradt, Rachel, "Northwestern University: Putting College Outreach to the Test," The American Feminist, vol.4, no.1 (Spring 1997).
17. The disclaimer reads as follows: "The opinions expressed in The American Feminist by individual authors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the policies, views or beliefs of The American Feminist editorial staff, FFLA's executive director, or the board of directors."
18. FFL's brochure, "You're Not Alone" (see Appendix D).
19. FFL's brochure, "What Women Really Want" (see Appendix D).
20. As of 11/97, FFL's Internet site can be accessed at http://www.serve.com/fem4life.
21. R. O. Bottcher, "Celebrating 25 Years of Pro-Life Feminism."
22. K. Jefferson, interview.
23. Phone interview with FFL intern (in national office; no name given), November 1997.
24. Anonymous, "Congratulations FFLA: Violence Against Women Act is Law!", The American Feminist, vol.1, no.2 (Fall 1994), p.1.
25. J. Buchanan, "A Personal Perspective on the Violence Against Women Act."
26. K. Jefferson interview.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. FFL's brochure, "Who Are We?".
30. K. Jefferson interview.
31. This acknowledgment is located on the back of The American Feminist, vol.4, no.2 (Summer 1997), and reads as follows: "We think abortion is a bad thing." Kate Michelman President National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) ..."Kate, we agree."
32. I am using the term "anti-choice" here to point out misogynist tendencies in this ideology. This is distinguished, in my view, from the term "pro-life," which can allow for limited discussion of the issues surrounding abortion, despite the fact that it can be misleading (misleading in that it implies that pro-choice individuals are "anti-life"). In addition to misogynist tendencies, however, I believe that the term "anti-choice" has religious undertones, implying that women are meant to be mothers, that motherhood is their primary purpose in life, and that it is demanded (by God?) that all pregnancies result in birth. This is the foundation, I feel, of much of the anti-choice rhetoric: that to interfere with this demand, is to go against the word of (God), and no one is to go against the word of (God).
33. M. Jean Heriot, "Fetal Rights versus the Female Body: Contested Domains," Medical Anthropology Quarterly, vol.10, no.2 (June 1996), p.177.
34. Ibid.
35. FFL's brochure, "Who Are We?"
36. Elise Ehrhard, "Cloning: The Tip of the Iceberg?" The American Feminist, vol.4, no.2 (Summer 1997).
37. Joan Kemp, "Abortion: The Second Rape," Sisterlife, vol.10, no.1 (Winter 1990).
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. As an aside, I also found it interesting (not to mention disturbing) that, upon being asked in the interview about abortion after rape, Kelly Jefferson immediately began her response by citing the fact that Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade) was never raped, that she lied about being raped in order to procure an abortion, since prior to the legalization of abortion, it was "legal" if the woman claimed to have been raped. Jefferson said "What a slap in the face to rape victims, to use this to get what you want." I agree that it is maddening when someone lies about being raped, because it does affect the support others get who actually have been raped. Yet, McCorvey wanted an abortion in 1972, when it was illegal. She knew that she could get one only by claiming that she was raped. Her lying in this instance, in my view, is testament to why abortion should remain legal. A woman shouldn't have to deceive in order to control her destiny.
41. J. Kemp, "Abortion: The Second Rape."
42. FFL's brochure, "Who Are We?"
Anonymous. "Congratulations FFLA: Violence Against Women Act is Law!" The American Feminist1 (Fall 1994): 1.
Bottcher, Rosemary Oelrich. "Celebrating 25 Years of Pro-Life Feminism." The American Feminist 4 (Summer 1997): 8-9.
--------. "Feminists for Life: Who Are We?" The American Feminist 1 (Fall 1994): 16.
Buchanan, Juda. "A Personal Perspective on the Violence Against Women Act." The American Feminist1 (Fall 1994): 10-11.
Conradt, Rachel. "Northwestern University: Putting College Outreach to the Test." The American Feminist4 (Spring 1997): 9.
Ehrhard, Elise. "College Pro-Lifers Get Creative." The American Feminist 4 (Fall 1997): 6, 20.
--------. "Cloning: The Tip of the Iceberg?" The American Feminist4 (Summer 1997): 2-3.
Feminists for Life of America. brochure, "What Women Really Want." 1995.
--------. brochure, "Who Are We?" (with Susan B. Anthony on the cover), 1995.
--------. brochure, "You're Not Alone." 1996.
Feminists for Life intern. Telephone interview, November 1997.
Foster, Serrin. "Enlightened Choices: How to Make Abortion Rare." The American Feminist 4 (Spring 1997): 2-4.
Heriot, M. Jean. "Fetal Rights versus the Female Body: Contested Domains." Medical Anthropology Quarterly10 (June 1996): 176-194.
Jefferson, Kelly. Personal interview, Fall 1997.
Kemp, Joan. "Abortion: The Second Rape." Sisterlife 10 (Winter 1990).
Kiniorski, Kerri-Ann. "South Carolina Bans Partial-Birth Abortions." The American Feminist4 (Summer 1997): 6.
Rieg, Carol. "A Mere Three Inches From Equal Protection." The American Feminist2 (Fall 1995): 1-3.
Wolf, Naomi. Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How to Use It. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1993.
Interview Questions for Kelly Jefferson
1. Would you like to tell us a little about yourself?
2. How did you become involved with FFLA?
3. Can you talk about your personal reasons for getting involved with FFL?
4. Can you talk about the legislative and political work that FFL does?
5. Is FFL connected to religious organizations through funding, or is it religiously- affiliated?
6. What does FFL, and yourself, feel is the main obstacle to women's autonomy and empowerment?
7. How do you feel about organizations such as Operation Rescue and the types of activities that they engage in?
8. How do you feel about "sidewalk counseling"?
9. If FFL could give all women the knowledge and information that they need to make a well-educated, well-informed choice, what would your position be if a woman still wanted an abortion?
10. What is your position on abortion after rape or incest, or due to a threat to the mother's life?
11. Can you describe the demographic makeup of FFL?
Interview Questions for Staff/Interns/Volunteers of FFL's Washington DC office
1. How long have you been involved with FFLA?
2. What are your personal reasons for being involved with FFLA?
3. What is your function or title within the organization?
4. Would you like to tell us a little about yourself (occupation, hobbies, education, etc.)?
5. How if FFLA organized? Is it hierarchical? How are decisions made (majority vote, consensus, etc.)?
6. Can you please describe one of your chapter or national meetings?
7. Could you describe the demographic makeup of the organization (race/ethnicity, where they live, occupation, education level, marital status, religion/spirituality, #of children, sexual orientation, political ideology, etc.)?
8. Does your organization work with other feminist organizations? Coalition building? If so, what activities do you do with other organizations?
9. How does FFLA get its funding?
10. What type of political work does FFLA do? Does FFLA work on other issues besides abortion, and if so, what are they?
11. In terms of legislation, do you work towards making abortion illegal? If so, do you see any contradictions in pro-life legislation and the feminist idea of empowering women? More broadly, how does being pro-life empower women?
12. Are there any circumstances in which you feel abortion is a valid choice for a woman (rape, incest, disease of mother or fetus)? If so, are there any abortion procedures that you feel are worse than others (1st term more acceptable than 3rd term, etc.)?
13. Do you feel the government should be involved, at all, with the abortion issue?
14. Did FFLA have any part in the 'partial birth abortion' debate and/or legislation?
15. What does FFLA see as the main obstacles to women's autonomy and empowerment?
16. Do you see women as biologically destined to be mothers, care-givers, nurturers?
17. What do you see as men's role and responsibility towards child-rearing?
18. Do you feel that class and race play into the abortion issue, and if so, how?
19. How do you feel about pro-choice feminists?
20. How do you feel about other pro-life organizations and individuals?
21. Is FFLA affiliated with any religious organizations in any way?
22. What are your thoughts on pro-life violence and "sidewalk counseling"?
23. FFLA's literature mentions that they feel that abortion exploits women. Could you elaborate on that?
24. Anything else you'd like us to know?
The brochures and information for these appendices are copyrighted by FFL,
and can be accessed through their web site http://www.serve.com/fem4life,
or contacting them at:
Feminists for Life of America
733 15th Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-737-FFLA
Do you have any comments regarding this paper? E-mail me at [email protected]!! Thanks!
BACK TO TOP
You are the:
visitor to this page since March 9, 1998.
Author= Maureen A. Barlow
This page URL= http://www.geocities.com/~maureen-b/FFLApaper.html
Home URL= http://www.geocities.com/~maureen-b/index.html
E-Mail= [email protected]
This page hosted by the lovely folks at Geocities
Get your own Free Home Page