FFLNY Archived Editorials


Historians, historic papers: 19th-century feminists opposed abortion
Letter to the Editor by FFLNY President Mary Dwelley
Albany Times-Union, January 2, 2006

I write in response to Lois Shapiro-Canter’s letter of December 13 in which she challenges the pro-life feminism of 19th century women. As president of Feminists for Life of New York, I welcome the interest in this issue.

The writer is accurate in assessing the position of women at this time. Marriage “extinguished their right to own property and earnings. The children [women] would bear became the ‘property’ of the father who could grant custody to anyone, other than the mother in the event of his death.”

Because Elizabeth Cady Stanton, mother of seven, believed so strongly in the equal rights she held to her children, she could not imagine condoning abortion. Her October 16, 1873 letter to Julia Ward Howe asserts,“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.” (Harriet Stanton Hatch, Letters, p. 77).

The writer is also accurate when she states that Stanton and Anthony supported “voluntary motherhood.” That, however, is a far cry from supporting the right to take preborn life. There is strong proof that they opposed abortion from the historians who write about this issue.
                                                                                               
Those who have addressed the history of reproduction in America over the past thirty years all arrive at the same conclusion: 19th century women reformers opposed what they interchangeably called “infanticide, abortion, and child murder” as examples of a loss of life and property suffered by women.

To point Carl Degler, At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present, writes that “the argument against abortion carried great weight even with even those who might be expected to support abortion because of their interest in women’s rights.”(p. 243). Linda Gordon, Woman’s Bodies, Woman’s Rights, concludes that “during the 19th century feminists and free lovers alike condemned abortion because it destroyed a human being.” (p. 108) Elisabeth Griffith, The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, argued that “Stanton found abortion and the related act of infanticide ‘disgusting and degrading crimes.’”(p. 133)

Indeed, Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, co-editors of The Revolution, refused advertisements for abortifacients in their newspaper. Many of the articles they published, wrote, or endorsed in this feminist paper, demonstrate an opposition to abortion. The issues that include these are partially listed: January 29, 1868, vol. 1(4), March 12, 1868, April 9, 1868, July 8, 1869, vol. 1(4), ,  September 2, 1869

Space precludes the many other sources available to scholars that underpin this prolife feminist position. I would urge the writer to return to the history books she uses to determine a more accurate interpretation. Feminists for Life have no agenda to re-write history, simply to maintain the pro-woman, pro-life agenda that the early women founders endorsed and we still endorse today.

back to top


Letters to the Editor About Embryonic Stem Cell Concerns
Printed in Rochester's City Newspaper January 25, 2006

Feminists for Life of New York disputes Mark Noble's claim that the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research is solely a religious one ("Hope, Fear, and Politics," January 4). In addition to the objections of religious groups, based on their belief that life begins at conception, there are objections from within the scientific community itself. Do No Harm, the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, is a group of scientists and physicians who encourage the pursuit of adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cell research because of known successful treatments with ASC verses no known treatments or cures using ESC. This coalition also objects based on concerns that ESC research violates ethical guidelines set in place for conducting research on human subjects.

Feminists for Life of New York objects to ESC research based its potential health, social, and emotional risks for women. For example, what are the long-term effects of super-ovulation drugs on women's health? What population of women will the scientific community call upon for volunteers to participate in creating and harvesting live embryos? Will certain populations be offered compensation to become pregnant for the intent purpose of "embryo harvesting"? If so, what will be the medical, physical and psychological effects on these women?

FFLNY believes that ESC research is unethical. It steals a life at its most vulnerable pointand directs millions of dollars away from ASC research and its many proven therapies and cures.

Kelly Vincent-Brunacini, Rush-Henrietta Town Line Road, Rush
(Vincent-Brunacini is a member of the board of Feminists for Life of New York)

Tim Macaluso states that the sources of embryonic stem cells are only three: "umbilical cord placenta, aborted fetuses, and unused fertilized eggs from fertility clinics." Never mind the scientific distortion this assumption makes, and save the limitations of frozen embryos for another argument. Macaluso fails to mention what might be the world's most fruitful and economic source of embryonic stem cells: eggs that women "donate" to science. We might have the ability to produce an embryo without sperm, but we can't do it without an egg. Every woman who continues to ovulate, in other words, every woman who still experiences her period, has access to such eggs. She can choose how to use them.

Mark Noble likes to have us imagine scenarios that help determine the value we assign to life, like the one he poses about a fire that forces a choice between saving thousands of human embryos or a single 5-year-old child.

I suggest another scenario, which invites us to determine the value of a woman's body. Which women will be donating the millions of eggs science eventually will require to perform experiments on human embryos? Women inspired by the illness of friends and the hype given possible cures? Women lab assistants whose positions are more secure through their donations? Women driven by guilt, who become pregnant to save family members? Women too poor to pay their bills who sell their monthly ova? Women who can sell even more by using fertility drugs to produce eggs instead of producing children?

The possibilities are endless. Where are the feminists worrying that "my body is myself?"

The recent Korean scandal over stem cell research is a case in point. Not only should it cause us to pause before leaping on to advance such projects, but it should cause us to ask: "where do we want to obtain the eggs?" Veterinarian Hwang Woo Suk's first ethical breach involved the source of eggs. When scientists discovered that Hwang used ova "donated" from two of his junior scientists rather than volunteers, they condemned the practice.
I fear in our rush to obtain funding for research not yet proven ethical or even possible, we might fall into the Korean trap. I offer two suggestions: 1) continue intensive adult stem research, and 2) advance the new research that creates embryonic stem cells without destroying life. Do we all know that's what happening?

Suzanne Schnittman, Highland Avenue, Rochester

Regarding Dr. Mark Noble's "thought experiment" about choosing between rescuing a nitrogen tank containing frozen embryos and a child: is he posing this question to the owners (also known as parents) of the embryos? Their answer might not be as obvious as the one Dr. Noble presumes. I would venture that they would value the child and the nitrogen tank of equal and infinite value. Therefore both are worthy of rescue.

In the discussion of embryonic stem cell research, much is said about using the embryos that "will be discarded anyway." For anything to happen to an embryo, consent is required by the parents. Why haven't we heard from all these parents who are supposedly lining up to donate their "extra" embryos for research? My guess is they are unwilling. Maybe they have witnessed at least one of their embryos as the younger selves of their current children and wouldn't dream of donating them for research; so why donate their siblings? A recent study showed 59 percent of parents who initially planned to discard extra embryos changed their minds later, choosing another pregnancy or donation to infertile couples.

Dr. Noble cites estimations that "between 40 and 80 percent of blastocysts are washed out in the menstrual flow." This language not only seeks to liken early life to waste products, but it is misleading. If these blastocysts are so necessary for embryonic stem cell research, why not collect menstrual blood and extract them? Besides being an inefficient process, the answer is obvious. Blastocysts present in menstrual blood are products of a very early miscarriage. In short, they are not viable. And it is living human embryos, donated with the consent of their parents, which are necessary for ESCR.

Calling those who question embryonic stem cell research anti-science or uninformed is not fair; many of them are the ones who will not be manipulated by language likening embryos to waste and hypothetical scenarios that ultimately only bring out differences in the age of living beings.

Margaret Smerbeck, Pittsford

back to top


Elizabeth Cady Stanton set example inbridge-building
Democrat and Chronicle, November 16, 2004

In 1857 Susan B. Anthony encountered a roadblock in the Woman’s Rights Movement. Never a woman to mince words, Anthony scolded colleagues Lucy Stone, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton for diverting their attention from making speeches to making babies: “Though I rejoice with you…that your souls may be warmed by mothers’ loves – I nevertheless, cannot shut my eyes to the fact, that the public work will seem to suffer from your temporary withdrawal.” Stanton cautioned Anthony to let her friends relish their roles of motherhood and take a break from “the cause.” “Susan, let them rest in peace and quietness thinking great thoughts. It is not well to be in the excitement of public life all the time, so do not keep stirring them up or mourning over their repose.” Her role of mediator is one we might emulate today.

In the contemporary world, where working moms and “stay at home” moms alternately envy and dismiss each other, advice from Stanton is welcome. As we celebrate her birthday today, (November 12, 1815), it is appropriate to recall how far she took that skill.

Stanton did more than calm the ruffled feathers of friends whose life styles parted company from time to time. She built bridges between much deeper chasms. Throughout her life, although Stanton represented the most radical wing of the woman’s rights movement, she never underestimated the importance of allying with those in different philosophical places. One set of colleagues expressed concern when Stanton cavorted with extreme wings of the women’s movement, such as “free love advocates” and Presidential candidate Victoria Woodhull. Others were dismayed with Stanton’s endorsement of Frances Willard’s conservative Women’s Temperance Union. Still others were scandalized when Stanton and Anthony socialized with prostitutes and mill workers to win their support for suffrage. Nearly everyone in the Women’s Rights Movement felt the religious challenges to religion in Stanton’s Woman’s Bible would hurt their cause. Tempers flared, harsh words flew, but Stanton’s personal actions, whether in the mainstream or outside it, characterized the diverse trends among women throughout the 70-year struggle for women’s suffrage. Compromise made the accomplishments of that era possible. Unity in their sex held them together when all else failed. Motherhood was an ingredient to that glue.

In today’s world women are similar divided over life styles and philosophies. Babies surprise us with the common ground they sometimes provide. They recall our instinctive desire, either biological or emotional, not only to give birth but to maintain the right of that privilege. This reality brought an unusual coalition together in Rochester recently.

What joined Feminists for Life of New York, the New York State Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood of Rochester and Syracuse together this fall, was, amazingly, the cry of a baby. Rare allies, these signatories joined eight other groups as amici curiae (friends of the court) to a motion that would vacate what Rochester has come to call “The No More Babies Case.” More specifically, the motion responds to Judge Marilyn O’Connor’s May 2004 ruling that Stephanie Pendleton and Rodney Evers, Sr. have no more children until they can care for the four children they already have in foster care. The decision, which drew international attention, is the first of its kind. It bars Stephanie from procreation. Whatever your politics might be, the decision touched women of all persuasions. On first glance, it struck many as appropriate. After all, only those who can care for children should bear them. Early in the fall women’s groups began to discuss the decision in a broader arena. The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) sponsored a debate. Opinions jelled. Did we want the courts telling women when they could procreate? Within a week the coalition members found each other. The NYCLU lawyers began to write. We began to compromise. The right we recognized together loomed as large as the right Elizabeth Cady Stanton reminded Susan B. Anthony that all women share.

Do we form a coalition of strange bedfellows? Without a doubt? But these are the groups that have solved problems for years. I expect all the signatories of this coalition found themselves in new territory when they defended to their members participation in the shared law suit (appeal). Just as Stanton and Anthony joined diverse coalitions to advance their cause for women, we stand in excellent company when we move beyond narrow definitions of rights and embrace opportunities to explore common ground no matter how small it might be.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, feisty defender of motherhood at all costs, certainly smiles at this effort on the 189th anniversary of her birth. Her lessons continue as her words echo: “Leave them in peace to have their babies.”

FFLNY Co-Signs Letter Opposing the Death Penalty in the Scott Peterson Case
This letter was submitted to the LA Times, The Modesto Bee, and the San Francisco on December 13, 2004.

Many organizations that work against capital punishment and abortion are dismayed that the sentence of death was decided for Scott Peterson. Instead, sentence him to life in prison without parole. Sentencing him to life in prison would have been a suitable alternative since it would prevent Peterson from contact with the public and remove his freedom.

Our opposition is born out of our defense of every life, life that we do not want the state to take in our name. We understand the severity of the Peterson crime. Our special concern for women and their unborn children is consistent with our opposition to poverty, war, euthanasia, abortion and capital punishment. It makes the homicides of Scott Peterson’s wife Laci and of their unborn son Connor doubly horrific. We agree he should be punished. Life in prison without parole is consistent with our opposition to violence.

Violence perpetuates more violence and peace leads to more peace. State legislation has demonstrated an interesting connection between the death penalty and the destruction of unborn life , in this case by abortion. With the exception of Hawaii, the states that have not reinstated the death penalty are the same states that do not pay for Medicaid abortions.

Because of the nature of the double homicide conviction, a murder of mother and unborn son, the Peterson case demonstrates the clarity of this connection.

Mary Rider, Director, Consistent Life: an international network for life and peace

Carol Crossed, President, Democrats for Life of America

Mary Dwelley, Feminists for Life of America, New York State Chapter

back to top


Critiquing the "March For Women's Lives"
LindaBeth N. Flack.
Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, NY,April 28, 2004.

Rather than holding corporate America accountable for it’s policies toward working parents; instead of creating more social organizations to provide pregnant women in need with financial, emotional, and medical resources; rather than demand from our government a living wage, the lack of which disproportionately affects women; instead of being activists for change in society’s attitudes toward unmarried mothers, those who march in Sunday’s so-called March for Women’s Lives are holding up abortion as the solution to social inequality. The pro-choice movement has made what are social problems into women’s problems, has allowed the male scapegoat of “abortion” to be women’s “freedom.” The real march for women’s lives would be to demand a living wage, flex-time, telecommuting, child care on all college campuses, and resources for needy women who are pregnant. Fighting for women’s lives would include honest disclosure about the health risks and emotional pain that may accompany abortion. Abortion is not the cure-all for the inequality women still experience in society; it is a smokescreen for the real issues of power at play.

back to top


Fundamental Differences Between the Pro-Life Position and Supporters of Planned Parenthood
Timothy Cravens
Poughkeepsie Journal, January 23, 2004

There is a fundamental difference between those who are pro-life and those who support Planned Parenthood. Pro-life advocates believe that human life begins at conception and that the unborn child has a right to life from that moment, whereas Planned Parenthood supporters deny the life and humanity of the unborn child.

That the life and humanity of the unborn child are real is proven by some of the reasons that people support abortion. Over 80% of children conceived who are discovered to have Downs Syndrome are aborted. In India and China, a highly disproportionate number of female children are aborted because they are female.

The enthusiasm with which pro-"choice" activists demand Medicaid funding for abortions (obviously, pro-life women who pay taxes have no right to choose what to do with the monetary fruits of their physical labor!) and the presence of so many Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods leads one to conclude that they are carrying out Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's eugenic disapproval of the poor and "unfit" being allowed to "breed".

Not all pro-life advocates are conservative Christians — I have friends in the movement who are feminists, atheists, Jews, liberals, Democrats, pacifists, labor activists, witches, and gays and lesbians. As a gay rights activist myself, I am very concerned that if the "gay gene" is ever discovered, gay and lesbian unborn children will routinely be aborted. All human rights depend on the right to life from life's beginning at conception to its end at a natural death.

back to top


Beware Using Morning-After Pill as Cure-All
Suzanne Schnittman
Democrat and Chronicle, January 9, 2004

As a feminist, a women's historian, and a teacher of college students, I must respond to Nancy Stanwood's Speaking Out essay ("Approved morning-after pill for over-the-counter sales," Jan. 6) that endorses the idea of selling emergency contraception over-the-counter.

Her argument that this drug is like a seat belt for those faced with an automobile accident, astonished me.

  • The drug suggested for over-the-counter purchase, called Plan B or progesterone, has never been available unless prescribed by a physician. What suddenly removes that check on its use? What suddenly makes it safe? Why no age or other restrictions?

I remind readers that students can't receive aspirins from a nurse at school, can't purchase cigarettes or beer when they are under age, and can't drive without a license.

  • In an era when the FDA changes its rulings about drugs and food supplements, its assurance that Plan B is safe sold over the counter means safe only today.

For decades doctors have proscribed hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) for menopausal women, assuring them it was worth the small risk because it eliminated hot flashes and kept hearts and bones strong. Then, suddenly findings changed. I watched two friends die of breast cancer during 2002. Then I went cold turkey off hormones before the July 2002 announcement from the medical community about HRT's suspected ill effects.

Now the Journal of the Medical Association reports that during the year following the announcement, hormone prescriptions fell by a third, "reversing a seven year trend." In 2001, when about 6 million American women used HRT, an estimated 14,500 cases of heart disease, breast cancer, stroke and blood clots were caused by estrogen-progestin. When the use of HRT dropped, the incidents of these diseases also dropped.

True, my HRT listed a risk factor of only 1 to 4 percent for breast cancer. But would you get in a car that would crash 1 to 4 percent of the time?

  • Why do women continue to embrace chemical solutions that could harm their bodies? Even worse, why do women encourage other women to applaud these solutions? When my students see me suffer hot flashes a few times in each class, I explain the effects of chemical imbalance. When I'm not sure what chemicals would do to their bodies, I am honest. What doctor or parent would do less?
  • Finally, Plan B turns back the clock to the age of the irresponsible male. Constant pressure is on women to have sex, which even Stanwood suggests is the norm when she insists, "Most people have sex." First, there is enough pressure on women without a female physician suggesting a woman is abnormal if she does not have sex. Second, selling Plan B over-the-counter would be the final panacea for boys and men. They could buy it, carry it with then instead of condoms, and insist women have no worries.

And I haven't even touched the emotional experience of casual sex and the deadly effects of STDs, HIV, and AIDS. Assuming that over-the-counter emergency contraception is the answer for which girls and women have waited to fulfill their lives shortchanges them and their health. Feminists can do more.

Suzanne Schnittman teaches American history at SUNY Brockport and writes on women's issues.

back to top


Party Should Rethink Pro-Choice Stance
Carol Crossed
Journal News, September 21, 2003

I am a life-long democrat (small 'd') who wants to give some advice to the Democrats (big 'D') about how to win an election 14 months from now. The big question is, will we learn from 2000 and 2002 losses, or will we continue doing the wrong thing even better. The wrong thing is the abortion albatross.

Forty-one states have seen Republican gains since 1993. Only 7 states, plus DC, have seen Democratic gains (Gallup, 2003). Yet despite overwhelming popular support for restrictions on abortion, the Democratic Party continues to be advocates for the small minority of Americans who favor abortion-on-demand, no matter what the circumstance.

We can all agree that when somebody is for something, no matter what the circumstance, this can safely be called an 'extreme position'. A poll (8/8/03) conducted last month by the Center for the Advancement of Women, a pro-abortion rights group found 51% of women either say abortion should be illegal entirely (17%) or illegal except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. And a Gallup poll found that women were slightly more likely than men to want stricter laws.

Some may say that these two facts, the loss of enrolled democrats and the shift away from abortion rights, are not related to each other. But consider the following:

In 2002, Gallup asked voters how important the abortion issue was. 20% said the candidate must share their views in order to get their vote. Only 27% of voters said it was not a major issue.

10% of all Americans are single issue pro-life voters, while only 8% are single issue pro-choice voters. This yields a 2% point advantage for the pro-life side at the voting booth---which is nearly identical to the 2.4% net advantage to George W Bush in the presidential election, as documented by a LA Times exit poll. (Gallup, 2003)

In addition, major restrictions on abortion are supported by 62% of Blacks, 63% of Hispanics, and 65% of people making less than 20K/year. (Gallup, 2002) These groups are the base of the Democratic Party.

Despite enormous amounts of money poured into pro-choice Democratic PACS, like EMILY'S List with $33M, we still didn't win in 2002. The Abortion Albatross is a money drain, sinking millions of dollars that could be going toward showcasing candidates' concern for the environment, for peaceful solutions to war, to opposition to hunger and poverty.

Democratic political supporter and commentary Mark Shields put it this way: "What has to worry Democrats is that their [presidential] potential nominee will — by compulsive constituent-coddling of the variety shown by National Abortion Rights Action League — forfeit any chance of winning in November." (1/25/03)

That's why on August 11, 2003, grass roots New York democrats gathered in Albany to start a state chapter of Democrats for Life of America (DFLA). We join over seventeen other states forming chapters in the past 18 months, hoping to plug the hemorrhaging of good democrats from the party.

Let's be honest. Pragmatics of winning can't be everything. For instance, we in the DFLA want our Party platform to oppose capital punishment even if we lose a few votes because of it.

But pro-choice on abortion is hardly a principled position. In the 1840's and 50's, Democrats were on the pro-choice side of another great moral issue of the day, the issue of slavery. The collective conscience of the people voted for Republican Abraham Lincoln. It was a lengthy history lesson in pragmatics as well as principles. With rare exception, we continued to lose control of the White House and Congress until the election of Roosevelt in 1932.

But since then, we have proudly been the Party with a more expansive interpretation of human rights, whether workers' rights, minorities' rights, women's rights and the rights of the poor. So it is a tragic irony that now, the Party of the oppressed and the weak supports the wholesale destruction of a helpless, vulnerable class of human beings.

Meanwhile, the issues we Democrats really care about are losing out because our candidates are losing. The Democratic platform of 'a right to choose' has really become our Party's 'right to lose'.

It's time we stood up to the fanatical minority abortion-rights special interest groups and said 'no thank you' to their fat cash. It certainly won't buy our consciences. It won't even buy many elections.

back to top


Negative Representations of Actresses in Journalism
LindaBeth Nichols Flack, Chapin Street, Rochester, NY
City newspaper, November 19-25, 2003

Congratulations to City newspaper and Jon Popick ("Sick-Boy") for participating in the sexism that so pervades mainstream writing regarding female actresses. In Popick's review of In the Cut (October 29), he emphasizes the graphic sex scenes by actress Meg Ryan in the film (by graphically describing them himself), rather than discussing her actual performance as an actress (giving it one sentence), or even really discussing the movie itself clearly. His treatment of the sex scenes in the film encourages the typical media response to actresses roles- that is, giving them more attention for the sexual spectacle they produce rather than the quality of their work. This encourages the contemporary, sexist view of women that, while we may receive personal and professional achievements, ultimately we are there to be sexual objects. All Popick's description achieves is that the cinemas will have an influx of adolescent boys wanting to see the graphic sex scenes that, from this review, appear to be the entire content of the film. This effect seems antithetical to his review that, in reading between the sexual lines, essentially gave the film a bad review. Popick then adds insult to injury by referring to Ryan's breasts unprofessionally as "boobs" while in the same sentence describing them as "42-year old", which is obviously her age but as a descriptor of female breasts connotes the opposite of what our youth-obsessed culture deems valuable. The point of that paragraph (Ryan's steamy film attempting to negate her current sugar-sweet image) is a good one, however it was made quite crudely. Popick then becomes a pseudo-feminist by ending his article with a criticism of the director's lack of a "robust" female role in this film. Sorry, Jon, but that does not get your previous sexism off the hook. Next time, try reviewing the film performances, directing and other relevant matters and leave the graphic descriptions to Penthouse letters. And City, your front page headlines do not need to reflect your writer's insensitive language.

back to top


Unborn Victims of Violence-Why these Laws Need to be Passed
Mary Ziegler, Schenectady, a member of Feminists for Life

Lawmakers in New York will be voting shortly on the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill, which has gained much attention since the Laci Peterson tragedy. Under current legislation, if Laci had been murdered in NYS, her perpetrator would be charged with only one murder, and thereby face a much less severe punishment. The outrage and shock that followed the murders substantiates the idea that most Americans consider this not only one death but indeed a tragedy in which both a mother and son were murdered.

Unfortunately, pregnant women can often be targets of unbridled rage and violence, and indeed the capital region is no stranger to such heinous crimes. In 1998 for instance, in Troy a pregnant woman was punched in the stomach by her boyfriend, resulting in an emergency Caesarean section which delivered a live baby that did not survive. Depending on the results of an autopsy, the man could have been charged with murder of the baby- if it was deemed viable- or simply third degree assault. Ultimately the test results were inconclusive and he only received 11/2 to 3 years in jail. In another gruesome case, Daniel Rondeau of Troy strangled and dismembered his 5-month pregnant girlfriend, but ultimately did not get charged with the death of the unborn baby. His prison sentence was more severe- 25 years to life- but had he been charged with the murder of the child his incarceration would be guaranteed for life. In both cases these women were treated brutally, resulting in the death of the babies they intended to keep, but the law never made their perpetrators face justice for the loss of life.

Currently twenty-six states have passed laws that hold one accountable for the murder of an unborn baby, and another seven make the perpetrator face some kind of criminal liability. In NYS an individual has to be “alive and born” in order for their death to be considered a murder. Therefor, under current NYS laws, an assailant could fare better severely beating an expectant mother, thereby assuring the death of the fetus in the womb, than a less severe assault where the fetus could be born alive, and then later died. Not only are these laws confusing and inconsistent, they do not ensure that justice be served in these tragic cases.

It seems natural that when a pregnant woman has made the choice to have a child one should be held responsible for taking that life away. It is interesting, however, that the very people who are so vigilant in maintaining that a woman should have choice are trying to stop these laws from being passed. Groups such as NOW and NARAL are opposed to such bills, and according to NOW’s website, “this bill is a thinly veiled, unacceptable attempt to establish precedent-setting fetal-rights language into the laws of NYS…a woman who slips and falls on the ice…could be held criminally liable.” Not only are these irresponsible and absurd conclusions, they are blatantly false. The bill has made exclusions for abortion so medical personnel could not be held liable, and the mother would not be charged if she took the life of her own baby, either purposely or accidentally.

Such groups have become so obsessed with the idea of abortion rights they have ceased to care about what is truly best for women, and indeed what is legally and morally correct. Violence against pregnant women is a common occurrence, but such episodes might be deterred if a potential attacker knows he would be facing possible murder charges for the death of the unborn baby. If NOW and similar organizations were truly concerned with the welfare of women and supported their right to choose- which includes the choice to deliver the baby- then they would better serve women by supporting the passage of these bills. Opponents to the bill should be less driven by their own fears and political agenda and instead focus on doing what is right for the victims of these vicious attacks- and help prevent them from occurring. If Laci and Conner Peterson had been murdered in NYS there are few that would openly argue her nearly full term boy-who was certainly real in the eyes of Laci and her family- should not exist in the eyes of the law.

back to top


The Myth About Abortion and Feminism
Chris Fadden Fitch
Originally published in the Cornell Daily Sun

Upstate New Yorkers have been remembering and honoring our region's own rich heritage as we celebrate Women's History Month. New York State remains proud of its pioneering women, beginning with those who launched the Women's Rights Movement from Seneca Falls. The early feminists were seen as agitators, nay-sayers and troublemakers, yet the Seneca Falls women and others for decades after endured the derision because they were driven by a vision of a better society. The spokespersons of their time dismissed them and demanded they remain silent, but these women refused to accept the "status quo" which sustained the oppression and suffering of many.

Take for example Susan B. Anthony -- perhaps New York State's and the country's most honored woman. Although she valued motherhood and marriage highly, she chose the controversial path of remaining single and working outside the home so that she could better advocate a web of connected issues: better conditions for children and the poor, equal educational opportunities, property and income rights for married women an end to slavery and the death penalty, and women's suffrage. The common thread between all those issues was equal rights and justice for all.

The feminist movement that Susan B. Anthony led lives on today, but the voices calling for non-discrimination, human dignity, and compassion which were so much a part of over 120 years of the Women's Rights Movement have been nearly lost to the general public.

Today the most well-known and well-funded organizations that supposedly speak for all women have made a person's unequivocal support for abortion the litmus test to determine whether or not they are pro-woman. And the word "feminist" has sadly become synonymous with "pro-abortion."

But it's important we remember another fact of women's history: It was only in the late 1960s when a new idea came along, a bold social experiment proposing that women's ultimate liberation and empowerment in all areas would come from having the right to kill a child in utero with no questions asked. "Abortion" mutated almost overnight into a "proud political symbol" (Betty Friedan's term).

So it would follow that in a state which has led the way for abortion-on-demand for over thirty years, New York should have some of the best conditions for women in the country. To the contrary, the Washington-based Institute for Women's Policy Research ranks New York 42nd for women's participation and representation in the political process, and dead last among all the states for the "health and well-being" of its women (November, 2000).

There are good signs, though. It seems New York women themselves are beginning to recognize the failure of abortion as a liberator. When Feminists For Life of New York commissioned a study in February to ask New York state women what issues are important to them and what the government should do to help women, very few New York women prioritized abortion over issues like health care, gender pay equity, and childcare. Every analysis of the data revealed that New York state women ranked abortion last among the eight issues we asked about. If this is truly New York women's own agenda for change, are they -- are we -- being heard?

Those who claim to speak for all women and their needs have one issue they continually take to the front-line of the debate: abortion. Soon after George W. Bush was declared the victor of the 2000 election, Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood of America, warned, "Every poll shows Americans care deeply about reproductive rights ... Planned Parenthood will be watching for signs of a cave-into the extreme right on reproductive rights and health." New York women may care deeply about reproductive rights, but certainly not as much as knowing we will be able to see a doctor when sick, earn enough to support our family or be assured of quality care for our children while we must be in the workplace.

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) launched a campaign in 2000 to "roll back the restrictions that place vital reproductive health care out of reach for too many young women in this country -- especially low-income women and women of color." Yet abortion is not a high priority for low-income and minority women. In the FFL-N.Y. survey, 22 percent of New York state women overall said that maintaining the right to have an abortion is the most important thing the government should work on to help women; within that group, only 12 percent of African-American women and 13 percent of women with incomes below $15,000 place this much emphasis on maintaining the right to an abortion. Those women who do rate abortion a high priority tend to be wealthy, well-educated women living in the suburbs: i.e., many of their basic needs for living a dignified existence have already been met.

Susan B. Anthony would be appalled by groups that equate women's rights with abortion rights. She, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a legacy of others held firm that the only way to eliminate abortion, which they viewed as a symbol of women's exploitation rather than liberation, was to "reach the root of the evil, and destroy it" (Anthony, The Revolution, 1869).

Rather than continuing to put the cart before the horse, let us honor the vision of our feminist foremothers and the voices of today's women by putting first things first: women and their real needs.

back to top


An Uppity Woman from New York: Honoring the Legacy of Susan B. Anthony

New York State has always been proud of its uppity women. And today we celebrate the birthday of Susan B. Anthony-one of New York State's finest uppity women.

In an age when women were not expected to work outside the home, Anthony worked tirelessly for women's suffrage. She campaigned for poor and professional women's rights, children's rights, as well as the abolition of slavery and the death penalty. She was indefatigable and she truly believed that "failure was impossible."

The feminist movement that Susan B. Anthony played such a critical role in is alive today, but the goals of many prominent women's organizations have been painfully distorted. Organizations that supposedly speak for all women have decided that a person's support for abortion rights should be the litmus test to determine whether or not they are pro-woman.

Throughout last month's Senate confirmations, these organizations decried President Bush's selection of John Ashcroft for Attorney General. Ashcroft's record on "women's issues" was attacked vociferously. "Women's issues," everybody understood, meant abortion rights.

Yet, when Feminists for Life of New York commissioned a study to ask NYS women what issues are important to them and what the government should do to help women, very few NYS women prioritize abortion over issues like health care, gender pay equity, and child care. No matter how we broke the data down, out of the eight issues that we asked women about, abortion was their last priority.

Someone should tell Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood. Soon after George W. Bush was officially declared the victor of the 2000 election, she gave this stern warning, "Every poll shows that Americans care deeply about reproductive rights. As key appointments and other decisions are announced by the new administration, Planned Parenthood will be watching for signs of a cave in to the extreme right on reproductive rights and health."

Some Americans care deeply about reproductive rights-but certainly not as much as NYS women care about being able to see a doctor when they are sick or earning enough to support their family.

In fact, one may start to wonder whether abortion rights groups have lost sight of what women really want.

Last year, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) announced that it would be launching a campaign to "roll back the restrictions that place vital reproductive health care out of reach for too many young women in this country-especially low-income women and women of color."

Yet, abortion is not a high priority for low-income and minority women. In the FFL-NY study we found that abortion is the least important issue facing low-income women and minority women in NYS. Whereas 22% of all NYS women say that maintaining the right to have an abortion is the first, second, or third most important thing the government can do to help women, only 12% of black women and 13% of women with household incomes below $15,000 place this much emphasis on maintaining the right to an abortion. Those women who do rate abortion high tend to be wealthy, well-educated women living in the suburbs.

As we celebrate Susan B. Anthony's birthday and anticipate the arrival of Women's History Month, we should embrace Anthony's commitment to eliminating the oppression of women-not through sacrificing their children-but through finding real solutions to the problems that women face today.

back to top


A New Look at Women's History
Jill Murman Payne

March is Women's History Month, and a good time to take a fresh look at the legacy of our foremothers in the American women's rights movement. Two of the most famous, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were native New Yorkers who turned 19th century conventions on their head by demanding equal rights for second-class citizens of the day: slaves and women.

Stanton and Anthony, like many early feminists, were staunch abolitionists and recognized the inherent personhood of those human beings who at the time were being bought and sold as chattel. In taking up the suffrage campaign, they argued that women also should be considered autonomous individuals, legally independent of their husbands and fathers.

There was a third segment of the human race that these feminists felt deserved respect and protection: pre-born babies. Very few women's history books make note of the fact that Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other early women's rights leaders opposed abortion. But they did so, on grounds that it destroyed a human life and degraded the mother.

For example, in her newspaper, The Revolution, Anthony condemned the practice of abortion, stating: "I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder.... We want prevention, not merely punishment."

Writing in 1873, Stanton argued: "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."

Mattie Brinkerhoff, a contemporary of Stanton and Anthony, wrote: "When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society-so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."

These are just three examples of suffragists who championed the rights of others and recognized the humanity of all persons, born and pre-born. There are other famous feminists who challenged the morality of abortion, including Alice Paul, author of the Equal Rights Amendment, Emma Goldman, anarchist and pacifist, and Mary Wollstonecraft, who in 1792 penned the treatise, A Vindication of the Rights of Women.

Today, growing numbers of women continue to support the principles of gender equity while believing that abortion is contrary to basic human rights. But isn't pro-life feminism a contradiction? There is a common misconception that for a woman to be a feminist she must embrace the notion that abortion is a good thing, even a sacred right, never to be restricted by law or criticized publicly. Like every other stereotype, this generalization has many exceptions. In the narrowest sense of the word, "feminism" is defined as "the principle that women should have rights equal to those of men." Yet the feminists of yesterday and today have consistently viewed their mission in a broader realm, benefiting men and boys as well as women and girls. From their earliest efforts to win the vote, America's suffragists described their vision in terms of peace and justice for all humanity. And while some contemporary women have fought for the privilege of serving in the military, non-violence tends to be a more common hallmark of feminism down through the ages.

Whether they are advocating on their own behalf, or for the rights of others, women activists historically tend toward compassion and cooperation rather than aggression and competition. This was so in the 19th century women's suffrage campaign, which grew out of the abolition crusade. And it was the case in the modern women's movement, which was birthed in the anti-war activism of the 1960s and '70s. True feminists know that violence against another is easily justified when the "enemy" is depersonalized due to skin color, political persuasion or degree of development.

Which brings us to the issue of language, how we define ourselves and our beliefs. In the ongoing abortion debate, the words "freedom of choice" are typically invoked in defense of the procedure. Supporters of legalized abortion demand that a woman must be free to control her body as she chooses. Opponents of abortion counter with the argument of the abolitionists, insisting that the fetus is an individual human being in its own right.

Today's pro-life feminists prefer to take a middle ground, saying they are both pro-woman and pro-child. They promote societal improvements that will benefit pregnant women while protecting unborn children. Like their feminist foremothers, these modern advocates of the disenfranchised are using education and legislation to create a new culture where the choices available to women are safe, non-violent and life-affirming for everyone involved. It may seem like a radical idea, but one of which Susan B. and Elizabeth C. would surely approve.

back to top