"…nobody is pro-abortion…"
Letter to the Editor by member Meg Smerbeck, Democrat and Chronicle April 21, 2008
How refreshing to read Obama’s comment (“On the Campaign Trail” 4/12/08) “…nobody is pro-abortion…” While abortion is one of the most polarizing and emotional issues of our day, it is encouraging to read a comment characterizing the viewpoint of most every American: No one thinks abortion is a great thing. Even those with fervent pro-choice beliefs do not take the decision lightly and would never want to be characterized as “pro-abortion.” Conversely, those holding strong pro-life beliefs respect the dignity of women and do not wish to strip them of all decision making powers. Let’s continue to bring sensibility, respect and progress to the dialogue by returning the favor with our use of language: “Nobody is anti-choice.”
Margaret Smerbeck
Pittsford, NY
Leading feminist put mothering first
Suzanne Schnittman
Guest essayist
Democrat and Chronicle. Monday, November 12, 2007
"How's the baby sleeping?" I asked my son on the phone.
"He hasn't tried it yet, but I think he'll like it," my son sighed.
I resisted my temptation to be a helicopter grandmother, held my tongue, and laughed with my son. Then I thought of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, whose 201st birthday we celebrate today and all her advice on mothering.
In her wonderful memoir, 80 Years and More, Stanton devotes a full chapter to motherhood. Oddly, her advice about being a mother rings just as true as that about being a feminist. Stanton was married for two years before she gave birth to the first of her seven children. During that time she read literature and law, attended temperance and anti-slavery lectures, and hosted salons whose guests discussed vital issues of the day. None of those prepared her for motherhood.
Before long she discovered, "Though motherhood is the most important of all the professions — requiring more knowledge than any other department in human affairs — there is not sufficient attention given to the preparation for this office." While every other science requires years of training, child-raising is one "to which philosophers have, as yet, given but little attention.
"My advice to every mother is, above all other arts and sciences, study first what relates to babyhood, as there is no department of human action in which there is such lamentable ignorance."
Stanton's favorite source was Andrew Combe, author of Infancy, because he treated the whole child, from prenatal life to toddler. When Combe and others failed to answer her questions, Stanton set herself the task of becoming an expert in parenting, learning as most of us do through experience. "I trusted neither men nor books absolutely," she wrote a friend after treating a child's sore shoulder by bandaging it to his torso to keep it immobile.
When colleagues urged Stanton to leave parenting to others and return to the lecture circuit and convention meetings, she refused. She believed that her most important work was raising her children.
One might assume that after Stanton had raised seven children and established her public life in the women's rights movement, she would have less interest in babies. Not so. She never was in the presence of children without noticing how she might help them or their parents. "I never hear a child cry, now, that I do not feel that I am bound to find out the reason," she wrote.
I thought about my son, pacing the room with swaddled baby in his arms. I might just send him Elizabeth Cady Stanton's book, in honor of her birthday, and to give him some old-fashioned advice.
Schnittman, of Rochester, is writing a book about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and three other women's rights leaders and their daughters.
Right to abortion is now sideline issue
Linda Stephens' claims in her September 12 Speaking Out piece do not reflect today's women. When polled, women have not named abortion rights as a top priority for decades. In the 2004 Presidential election, polls found that women's top concern was the safety and security of their families, followed by economic concerns. Of all voters in 2004, only one third thought that abortion should be "generally available." (NYT, July 25, 2004). A June 2003 Center for the Advancement of Women poll that asked women to name their greatest concerns found that 92 percent cited domestic violence, 90 per cent mention equal pay for equal work, and only 41 per cent named abortion rights.
In contrast to Stephens' suggestion that "most American women were shocked" about the recent Supreme Court partial birth abortion ban decision, an August 2007 CBS pool found the general population in favor by 75 per cent.
Even Hillary Clinton has moved abortion rights far down the list on her agenda. In 2006 she defended her $10,000 contribution to pro-life Democrat Bob Casey, calling him a "real champion" on such issues as health care. The previous year Clinton urged abortion-rights supporters to work with pro-life supporters to reduce the number of abortions, telling them both sides need to "join together to take real action to improve the quality of health care for women and families, to reduce the number of abortions and to build a healthier, brighter more hopeful future for women and girls in our country and around the world." Today politicians rarely run as advocates of abortion rights. They appreciate that women have much broader, truly feminist, preferences: the health and well-being of all people.
As Governor Spitzer uses time, energy, and money to strengthen abortion-rights laws in New York State, most specifically his latest Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act, he is not listening to what women want the most.
Suzanne Schnittman
Advisory Council, Feminists Choosing Life of New York
585-473-1146
1732 Highland Avenue
Rochester 14618
No-Child Order Crossed the Line
by Margaret Smerbeck, Pittsford
Board Member, Feminists Choosing Life of New York
Letter to the Editor printed in Rochester's Democrat and Chronicle October 8th, 2007
Feminists Choosing Life of New York supports the latest decision of a higher court’s overturning of Judge Marilyn O’Connor’s ruling in Rochester’s “No more baby” case. This decision vacated O’Connor’s mandate that a drug addicted mother, with a history of serious neglect of several other children, have no more babies. While it is more than understandable to sympathize with the judge’s motivations, one should look further down the road regarding the implications of such a pronouncement.
If this ruling stood, one has to wonder what other factors might be considered by other judges and courts in the future. What if potential parents have little money, an “unsatisfactory” IQ, or significant health issues?
Society should continually strive to improve the lives of children, especially those suffering from abandonment, poverty or other troubling situations into which they are born.
As we continue to better the lives of children, we all must seek solutions to these heart wrenching problems. However, having a court decide who can and cannot bear children isn’t the answer.
*FCLNY signed on with New York’s ACLU as an “amicus” challenging the “No More Baby” ruling. (this sentense was not included in the D & C).
Unborn Victims Act needs support
by Florence Scarinci
Newsday October 1, 2007
I am writing regarding the comments of Mary Ann Carr, spokeswoman for NARAL Pro-Choice New York, in "Debating law for unborn victims" [News, Sept. 19]. The proposed Unborn Victims of Violence Act grants full protection of the law to fetuses only "when a woman makes a conscious choice to keep her baby . . . at any stage of gestation." The legislation specifically exempts any abortion to which a woman has consented.
In the preamble to the proposed legislation, the bill indicates 31 states and the federal government recognize there are two victims in the murder of a pregnant woman and her unborn baby. If NARAL and other such organizations cared about women and honored their choice to carry a pregnancy to term, they would be lobbying for passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and not wringing their hands at this tragic loss while doing nothing to prevent it, or blaming opponents of abortion for inaction on the bill.
Editor's note: The writer is Long Island liaison for Feminists Choosing Life of New York.
Jessie Davis - Letter to the Editor
by FCLNY Member Wendy McVeigh
Letter to the Editor printed in Rochester's Democrat and Chronicle June 29th, 2007
The family of Jessie Davis received a devastating blow this weekend as the double murder of her and her unborn daughter, Chloe were confirmed. The arrest of her boyfriend for the murders should be no surprise. The leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide; usually a final result of domestic violence. While there is no relief for Jessie’s family, there is some comfort in the justice that will be served for both Jessie and Chloe. In Ohio, murderers can be tried for both the death of the mother and the death of her unborn child.
This is not the case in New York. Due to conflicting penal codes, New York does not offer justice to Unborn Victim’s of Violence. In a state that so strongly protects a woman’s choice, shouldn’t women who choose motherhood also be given justice? There is no doubt that Jessie’s daughter was a very real person to her family. In Ohio, there is no doubt that the person who took away both lives should be prosecuted for both crimes.
A Letter to Governor Spitzer
Dear Governor Spitzer:
In response to your proposed Reproductive Health & Privacy Protection Act, Feminists Choosing Life of New York (formally, Feminists for Life of New York) would like to share with you our philosophy of pro-life feminism in hopes that you will reconsider your apparent position that abortion rights are synonymous with women’s equality. In the tradition of many early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Victoria Woodhul, FCLNY believes that abortion does not promote equality for women but is, in fact, an indication that the needs of women and their children are not being met.
When a woman seeks an abortion, she is not making this “choice” from a position of power but from a position of desperation. A pregnant woman will first seek ways to keep her child but when she looks around and finds no housing on her college campus for parenting students, when she is coerced by an intimate partner or family member, when she learns the high cost of prenatal care and childcare, when her position as an employee is at risk, this is when she may consider ending the life of her unborn child as a means of survival for herself. Abortion does not solve the problem of lack of accommodation for women’s childbearing responsibility in our society. It perpetuates it and has far reaching consequences not only for the woman and the unborn child she aborts, but for her family and for our society as a whole.
Clinical research consistently indicates that abortion brings with it a wide range of long-term side effects that may follow a woman throughout her life. These side effects, usually undisclosed at the time of the procedure, take the form of drug and alcohol dependence, mysterious physical symptoms, clinical depression, suicidal behaviors and most substantially, an inability to bond with subsequent children and an increased victimization through domestic violence. When we consider that approximately 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, it is easy to understand how wounded women create wounded families and how society itself is diminished as a result.
The continued focus on fortifying abortion rights serve only to divert attention away from the persistent inequalities faced by women as the child bearers of the human species. Real equality for women would include campus housing for parenting students, a decent living wage, universal prenatal care and affordable quality childcare for all of her children. Real equality for women would include protection against those who threaten her physical well-being and accommodation in the workplace so that she may develop herself professionally while simultaneously nurturing and guiding her family. These are the conditions that will offer women real empowerment.
Feminists Choosing Life, a secular, pro-life organization with 1400+ supporting members and friends throughout NYS, challenge you to create and support legislation that offers true equality for women and gives full protection to all children, born and unborn.
Sincerely,
Kelly Brunacini, president, FCLNY
Ethical Irony - Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor printed in Rochester's Democrat and Chronicle June 28th, 2007
Michael Keefe’s editorial cartoon (6/21/07) points out an ethical irony of our president’s support of the war and his veto to fund embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). While some find the irony baffling, it is his inconsistency I find disturbing. Supporting a culture of life, the president should show equal concern for all humans, whether in fertility clinics or the Middle East.
Both the war and ESCR are done with the goal of helping others live better lives, but clearly neither devastating means justifies its end. ESCR not only employs the willful destruction of embryos, its reliance on therapeutic cloning exploits women through egg harvesting. As civilian lives become statistics to the ceaseless violence in Iraq and women and children flee for their lives, one is hard pressed to define this as valuing and honoring human life.
All of us, soldiers, Iraqis, and those reading the morning paper, were once embryos regardless of whether we began in a woman’s uterus or a Petri dish. And none of us, as grown up embryos, deserve to be victims of destruction or exploitation.
Margaret Smerbeck, Pittsford
Board Member, Feminists Choosing Life of New York
Face Off
An Editorial by Kelly Vincent-Brunacini
Originally published in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, April 27 2007
On April 18, 2007, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy announced the 5-4 decision to uphold the national Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban contested in “Gonzales vs. Planned Parenthood. The decision prohibits “a method of abortion in which an unborn child is killed just inches before completion of the birth process”. PBA is used when the woman is more than 20 weeks into her pregnancy.
In 1973, Roe v Wade gave birth to Doe v Bolton, a ruling whose ‘health exception’ extended the right to abortion from Roe’s viability parameter to include all 9 months of pregnancy. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision to uphold the ban marks the first time Doe v. Bolton’s overly broad ‘health exception’ was narrowed”. This has pro-choice advocates concerned that the ban will open the door to greater restrictions for abortion.
Most Americans find the details of PBA, also referred to as, intact D&E, too gruesome to even read but the ruling describes the banned procedure as, “a doctor extracting the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull”. The ruling goes on to say that “there is a moral, medical and ethical consensus that this procedure is inhumane and never medically necessary.” According to a recent CBS poll, 85% of Americans oppose PBA.
Pro-choice advocates declare that the ban fails to protect women’s health but what they don’t say is that PBA leaves women venerable to a host of health problems including bleeding, infection, uterine perforation and triple lacerations. PBA also presents long term effects on the woman’s health including placenta previa (sp) and cervical incompetence which in turn can lead to pre-term birth in subsequent pregnancies.
Opponents to the ban say that removing the PBA option will subject women to more dangerous procedures but the truth is, only 10-15% of the annual 1.3million abortions performed take place after the first trimester and of these, all are subject to other late-term abortive methods. In lower court cases related to PBA, the respondents failed to produce any sound evidence that PBA was safer than other abortion methods used during the second or third trimester. Opponents argue that the ban does not make concessions for medical emergencies but in truth, the PBA ban allows exceptions when the woman’s life is threatened. The PBA procedure can take up to 3 days, thus the argument that there is insufficient time to petition the court is invalid.
Feminists Choosing Life of New York (formally Feminists for Life of New York) celebrates the Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on PBA. The ban is a long overdue, common sense restriction in an industry that has too long kept women uninformed regarding the potential for serious mental, physical and emotional side effects of abortion. The Supreme Court decision is a tremendous step in restoring dignity and respect to women and children.
Follow footsteps of early feminists:
Uphold rights of unborn children
SUSAN B. ANTHONY'S BIRTHDAY
By Carol Crossed, Guest essayist
Originally published in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 15, 2007
Susan B. Anthony's birthday provides women an opportunity to reflect on feminism, or the "f" word, as some articles and books describe it today.
We've given up our bra burning and hating men, but how would Anthony and her colleagues react to one unpopular view, particularly among youth, that we support abortion on demand?
Scholars agree that early women's rights activists universally opposed abortion, but they disagree on the primary reason why. One generally accepted reason is that women were not free. Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president, said, "Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth." Male sexual irresponsibility, lack of legal contraception and low-paying jobs promoted, in the words of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, this "crying evil." Highlighting these causes would serve to advance women's emancipation, while the "dreadful deed" of abortion accommodated the problem, as Anthony called it, that is society's oppression of women.
Articles in The Revolution, the newspaper founded, owned and published by Susan B. Anthony, run contrary to the beliefs of some feminists that abortion rights symbolize that women are indeed free. In Anthony's time, abortion was a symptom of the fact that they were not free, that society rejected women. Abortion was not a solution to inequality, but a symptom of their inequality.
Women's health safety was another reason. Sarah Norton, who worked for the Working Women's Association, blamed abortion doctors: "Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance and open infant butcheries unquestioned." Norton was not alone in graphic descriptions of abortion that are too politically incorrect for today's newspapers. In The Revolution, language did not obfuscate what abortion actually did to a child. Even before sonograms and DNA, women didn't wax ignorant or manipulate language to justify what they called "ante-natal murder" and "infanticide." The bluntness is a likely indicator of the moral weight the life of the child played in their denouncing abortion.
Some contemporary women's scholars quibble over whether it was Anthony herself who penned the article describing abortion in The Revolution as "The horrible crime of child-murder." (The article was signed "A.") However, Anthony expressed almost identical sentiments in a speech on marriage and maternity she gave in Chicago in 1875.
Whether "A" was Anthony or not, Anthony surely supported the opinions expressed in The Revolution. At a time when women's voices couldn't be heard through the vote, one can understand why Anthony's newspaper was not designed to be an instrument of balanced public opinion. In addition, Anthony's opposition to abortion was important enough to her that the masthead of the inaugural issue of The Revolution declared its policy of not accepting advertisements for "immoral" abortive medicines, a source of lucrative income for other publications of the day.
Today, the humanity of the unborn has become lost in historical amnesia. Dehumanizing arguments about brain development, smallness, personhood and ownership of another person were epithets used against women, as they are used as justifications to dominate the unborn child today. Elizabeth Cady Stanton presaged today's debate when she said, "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."
Susan B. Anthony's colleague Lucy Stone was faced with similar tensions as are pro-life and pro-choice women today: Stone, who worked for the Antislavery Society, was not allowed to mention women's rights in her lectures, and some in the women's suffrage movement forbade their colleagues to speak for the rights of black people. Stone insisted that not only were these groups not in competition, but working to liberate both simultaneously advanced their mutual cause.
A similar holistic vision today for women and their children, born and unborn, will serve to revitalize both movements.
Crossed, of Brighton, is a board member, Feminists Choosing Life of New York. She owns Susan B. Anthony's birthplace in Adams, Mass.