Thoughts on Jane Roberts and Feminists for Life -- UPDATED

Watching the video of John Roberts being introduced to the nation by President Bush on Tuesday, I was struck by how young his children were.  I did a little poking about on the Internet, and discovered that sure enough, five year-old Josie and four year-old Jack were both adopted by the Robertses after they discovered that they had married too late for Jane Sullivan Roberts to conceive naturally.

Why should that interest anyone?  Well, I'm struck that John and Jane (an alliterative family indeed) didn't marry until they were both in their forties, and it's the first marriage for both of them.  In some ultra-conservative Roman Catholic and evangelical circles these days, it's popular to push for early marriage and large families.  (Think Rick Santorum, who's still under fifty, and his six home-schooled children). That doesn't mean that Catholics are required to marry young and produce many children; but Jane Sullivan's life narrative seems more in tune with that of a progressive, professional woman than a traditional stay-at-home mom.  (And no, folks, I'm not attacking stay-at-home moms!)  Sullivan Roberts is a Georgetown graduate, a partner in a major Washington law firm, and a major contributor to and volunteer for an outfit I belonged to for several years, Feminists for Life.

While my pro-choice friends might be discomfited by Sullivan Roberts' close ties to a pro-life advocacy group, I'm heartened by it.  It's not just that I am (prayerfully and awkwardly) pro-life; it's also that as a pro-feminist man, I know full well that Feminists for Life is a long way away from more traditional anti-abortion outfits like National Right to Life.  Though I've criticised FFL in the past for being insufficiently concerned with issues other than abortion, there's no question that they've historically taken a more progressive stance than their conservative sisters on a variety of issues.  FFL has historically been strongly anti-death penalty, for example.   FFL is also listed as a member organization of the Consistent-Life Movement, which has as its mission statement:

We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today's world by war, the arms race, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment, and euthanasia.  We believe that these issues are linked under a consistent ethic of life.

If Jane Sullivan Roberts is a card-carrying member of FFL, that means there's a better-than-sporting chance that she holds the Consistent Life Ethic position (an ethic rejected by most traditional conservatives, who don't see poverty and the arms race and the death penalty as being nearly as egregious as abortion).  After all, if she didn't hold the Consistent Life Ethic, there are plenty of more conservative pro-life outfits out there to which she could lend her time and name and money!  And if she held or still holds the Consistent Life Ethic position, is there not some hope that her husband shares her views?

A man who marries a brilliant woman who is his intellectual equal when both are in their forties, and happily adopts children with her, is no troglodyte.  And a man married to a woman who is a proud member of a group that has "Feminist" in its title may not be the disaster for women's rights that some liberals are predicting, nor the champion for the right that some conservatives are hoping.

UPDATE:  In response to requests, here's a link to my February 1 post on why I stopped giving to Feminists for Life.  And Nathan Newman has come to a similar conclusion to mine.

Comments

[anon]

A man who marries a brilliant woman who is his intellectual equal when both are in their forties, and happily adopts children with her, is no troglodyte. And a man married to a woman who is a proud member of a group that has Feminist in its title may not be the disaster for women's rights that some liberals are predicting, nor the champion for the right that some conservatives are hoping.

Or he is gay... and made himself and instant right wing family to further his career.

[The Gonzman]

We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today's world by war, the arms race, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment, and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a consistent ethic of life.

If Jane Sullivan Roberts is a card-carrying member of FFL, that means there's a better-than-sporting chance that she holds the Consistent Life Ethic position (an ethic rejected by most traditional conservatives, who don't see poverty and the arms race and the death penalty as being nearly as egregious as abortion). After all, if she didn't hold the Consistent Life Ethic, there are plenty of more conservative pro-life outfits out there to which she could lend her time and name and money! And if she held or still holds the Consistent Life Ethic position, is there not some hope that her husband shares her views?

Hold on here a second, Lone Ranger. That who statement of "rejected by most traditional conservatives" is a base canard, and what you are doing here isn't anything short of demonising a position of people politically opposed to you.

Let's examine my take on it - and I'm on most things a Neal Boortz type of Neo-Libertarian.

war - I am opposed to war. I am not, however, opposed to self defense, nor do I subscribe to the ridiculous notion that you need to give someone a free shot at you before you can defend yourself.

the arms race - Like war, it takes two to make a peace, but only one to make a war. Unilateral gestures of goodwill tend only to work in Hollywood

abortion - While I am opposed morally to abortion, and will never willingly lend aid to one regardless of the law, I am opposed to Roe v. Wade because I regard it as a states rights issue. As a illustration of the reson why, you have but to look where we have an institution where five people - a Quintarchy if you prefer - can make or break it by judicial fiat.

poverty - I'm agin it. I do not hold, however, that left-wing handout policies offer any real permanant solution to the problem.

racism - I'm agin it. Define racism, though; far too often it is used so casually as to be meaningless.

capital punishment - I'm agin it again, it says to me that human life is the property of the state. I'd prefer exile and penal colonies. I'll settle for life without parole - that way if it's a bad conviction, all too common, it can be undone.

euthanasia - I'm against it again, as well as morally opposed to suicide.

So, with that in mind, I don't think you'd be thrilled about someone of my political leanings on the high court, and you have to remember, Hugo: Federalist Society.

I mean, if you just want to feel better, go ahead - but I think you're grasping at straws.

[The Gonzman]

Or he is gay... and made himself and instant right wing family to further his career.

Hmmm.

I'm always fascinated at how people on the left regard being gay as a fine, upstanding, and perfectly moral thing to be; but then it is the first insult they like to throw out.

Well, it sure speaks volumes to me as to how most left-winger/progressive/liberal types really feel about gays: Useful Idiots.

[Hugo]

Well, for heaven's sake, Gonzman, how do you know anon is a leftie?

I agree with you that it was an inappropriate remark.

I am delighted to learn you are against capital punishment.  On the other hand, libertarians positions don't square well with the consistent-life ethic.  Check out the Consistent Life site, and these ringing words to which Jane Sullivan Roberts has (by affiliation) endorsed:

What are we trying to achieve? A revolution in thinking and feeling, an affirmation of peace and nonviolence, an infinite gentleness, a value for the life, happiness and welfare of every person, and all the political and structural changes that will bring this about.

That doesn't sound specific, of course, but neither does it sound very libertarian!

[Jeff]

I know we disagree on the abortion issue, but I there's a slightly larger problem with Feminists For Life.

As you pointed out, they *are* a single issue group, and that single issue is *not* feminism (abortion aside, have they advocated for *any* explicitly feminist positions, or are their "progressive" positions limited to things like this Consistent Life Ethic?). I know they don't have control over who links to them, but I think it's telling that their list of allies includes several organizations I'd categorize as pro-life, but none I'd categorize as pro-feminist. I'm also wary of the number of religious groups supporting them, given the history of "faith based" groups hiding their religious affiliation in matters like this.

[Hugo]

They've been very clear about their support for child care, and for collecting child support; all of their back issues of their magazine, The American Feminist, are archived in PDF files on their site.

[Jeff]

Well, they'd have to be in order to not be total hypocrites.

[Sozialismus]

After reading David Brooks' column last night, I went and poked around the FFL website for half an hour last night. On their 'issues' page, everything except opposition to abortion required registration to access. They also had links on the abortion/breast cancer connection, which has been pretty thoroughly discredited for years now. They also have a page on Father's Rights issues -- though this also requires registration to access.

The idea of an anti-abortion feminist organization doesn't bother me per se. But, like Jeff, I'm wary this is a camouflaged anti-feminist organization.

You mentioned that you used to be a member of FFL, Hugo? Do you mind if I ask why you left?

[Jack W. Orf]

Halleluyah! Praise Jesus! John Roberts is the best thing to happen to
the Democrats since Nutt Goongrich. Lets see now: We have Georgie
bringing the Supreme Court back to the 19th century with a return to an
8-man, 1-woman court. Clearly, King George believes that the place of
the woman is pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen. With no chance
for an abortion.

Roberts is a judicial activist who has advocated (on record) using the
Supreme CT to overthow Rowe v Wade. The Democrats need to hammer the
message home to every woman of child-bearing age that if Roberts is
approved, they will soon no longer have the right to have an abortion.
Even if they're raped.

This is an issue so explosive that even church-going women who are
supposedly pro-life will respond to. Most of these women just go along
with the majority opinion but actually want the right to choose.

Democratic obstructionism should be maximized. This is free
advertising for the Democrats. Bush wants to turn the Supreme Court
back to some all-male 19th century creation. He wants to take away a
woman's right to choose. This could even break apart the uneasy
coalition in the Republican party between the pro-choicers and the
pro-lifers.

This could well be the DUMBEST decision Bush has made so far! Praise
Jesus, and pass the tax-free status. That's another thing: Time to
examine whether some of these "Christian" conservatives deserve a tax
break.

[Hugo]

So glad you asked, Sozialismus:

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/02/feminists_for_l.html

I explain it all there.

[The Gonzman]

That doesn't sound specific, of course, but neither does it sound very libertarian!

I disagree, Hugo. It's very libertarian, so long as you keep government coercion out of the equation; and to me "all the political and structural changes that will bring this about" means getting the nanny-state government's nose out of things which are not its business.

[Hugo]

Well, Gonzman, then I take it you'll be joining me as a member?

[Lee]

Hugo - I'm still not entirely clear on what your criticism of FFL is. Is it that they seem to have shifted their focus to concentrate more exclusively on abortion? Or is it simply that you don't want to "take sides" on the legal issues surrounding abortion? Regarding the first, I think it's understandable that an advocacy group would want to focus on a single issue (I wouldn't expect a death penalty abolition group to organize against abortion, for instance).

Just wondering.

[Hugo]

Lee, it's the latter. I put myself in a self-imposed silence on the subject of abortion, and that meant giving no time and no money to advocacy groups on either side until I had come to a place of certainty. I still call myself pro-life, but I am so conflicted on the subject that I don't think I have much to say that would be helpful. (This silence came after the Amy Richards posts of a year ago; see my "Popular Posts" for the links.)

[The Gonzman]

Heh - no Hugo, that whole "Feminists" thing is the show stopper for me - I'm not about to join an organization that self identifies as seeking more privileges for one of the most privileged demographics in western society.

Besides, women have a surfeit of advocates and champions as it is. I'll reserve my efforts for those who are having a hard time finding a political voice.

But if you are for real equality, you can go to http://www.trueequality.com and join me....

[Stephanie]

I'm sorry but FFL is so a single issue group. The key word is 'Life' and the 'Feminist' part is just supposed to add credibility for them working against women. Sorry, I can't stand them. They won't even promote birth control for women. If they did any actual work that benefitted women (lip service doesn't count), I might not be so critical .... but advocating for fetuses is not really much of a feminist statement if you ask me. They should be called Feminists for Fetuses.

[bmmg39]

"After reading David Brooks' column last night, I went and poked around the FFL website for half an hour last night. On their 'issues' page, everything except opposition to abortion required registration to access. They also had links on the abortion/breast cancer connection, which has been pretty thoroughly discredited for years now. They also have a page on Father's Rights issues -- though this also requires registration to access...The idea of an anti-abortion feminist organization doesn't bother me per se. But, like Jeff, I'm wary this is a camouflaged anti-feminist organization."

Why? None of what you mentioned is anti-feminist or anti-female. They're just not anti-male.

[Jennifer]

FFL does do work that benefits actual women. I heard Serrin Foster, the President, speak in Chicago, and she talked in detail about the work they've done on college campuses to make them more friendly to children and pregnant students. Such as, making certain maternity care is covered for students and opening day cares on campus. This benefits women no matter what their position on abortion. Her point was, if you're a college student, and you have no health care that would cover your pregnancy, and no info on where to go for resources (student health centers often had info on abortion providers but not non-profits that assist mothers in need, for example) or there is no daycare, then what kind of a "choice" can you make?

[Sozialismus]

bmmg39, it's true that nothing on their website is anti-feminist or anti-female (except for the misleading abortion/cancer pages). But there doesn't seem to be much available to the public that isn't anti-abortion. There's lots of life, where that's mostly synonymous with opposition to abortion, and not so much feminism. So, this very pro-reproductive autonomy lefty guy starts to wonder how different FFL is from, say, the Concerned Women for America or the Independent Women's Forum.

Oh, and what's with the conflation of feminism and misandry? Feminism's all about gender equity -- freeing both women and men from stereotypes and prejudice. Pretty much all the contributors to feministblogs.org only qualify as misandrists if a distaste for male privilege is misandry.

[Keri]

I'm with Stephanie-- while I won't entirely discount the concept that someone could be both against abortion and a feminist/pro-feminist, "Feminists for Life" is pretty clearly a dishonest attempt to ride the coattails of a progressive movement while championing a cause that's anything but. Check out their ads-- I'm not sure in what alternate universe it's considered feminist to guilt-trip rape survivors by showing a picture of a woman who was presumably conceived by rape and asking if she "deserved the death penalty," but in this one it's absolutely no different from the anti-woman shaming tactics used by the extreme right-wingers. It may be worse, actually, for them to claim to be "feminist" and then pull something like that-- at least the right-wingers are honest and up-front about their misogyny.

Frankly, I don't think there's any such thing as a "pro-woman" anti-abortion stance-- to claim that, you basically have to ignore all the women for whom abortion has been, literally or figuratively, a lifesaver. And that's what "Feminists for Life" does-- all their rhetoric seems to take for granted that of course women naturally want to be mothers, of course we'd choose to have as many babies as possible if only mean old society and men weren't always getting in the way. And while I'm sure there are women who wouldn't have chosen abortion if they had more financial support/job security/healthcare/childcare options/etc, and those are admirable goals to work toward, it's not particularly feminist to entirely ignore the concept that perhaps some women just don't want to be mothers, even in optimal circumstances. If feminism is about all women, not just the ones who are willing to fulfill their "natural role" as mothers, then there is absolutely no "feminist reason" to prevent women from making their own individual choices about abortion. Again, I'm not prepared to say that pro-lifers can't ever be feminist, but I do find any attempt to claim that one is pro-life because s/he is a feminist incredibly distasteful. If one must identify with both groups, at least keep them separate.

Even the name is misleading-- they're not "Feminists for Life," they're "Pro-Lifers for Feminism (when it's convenient and doesn't interfere with the rights of the fetus in any way)." I suppose that's less catchy, though.

[bmmg39]

"Oh, and what's with the conflation of feminism and misandry?"

From whom? I think I've made the distinction pretty clear.

"Feminism's all about gender equity -- freeing both women and men from stereotypes and prejudice. Pretty much all the contributors to feministblogs.org only qualify as misandrists if a distaste for male privilege is misandry."

It's only misandry if you see so-called "male privilege" where none exists.

[bmmg39]

"I'm with Stephanie-- while I won't entirely discount the concept that someone could be both against abortion and a feminist/pro-feminist, "Feminists for Life" is pretty clearly a dishonest attempt to ride the coattails of a progressive movement while championing a cause that's anything but. Check out their ads-- I'm not sure in what alternate universe it's considered feminist to guilt-trip rape survivors by showing a picture of a woman who was presumably conceived by rape and asking if she "deserved the death penalty," but in this one it's absolutely no different from the anti-woman shaming tactics used by the extreme right-wingers."

Well...does she? DOES she deserve the death penalty?

FFL is pretty up-front about its belief. There's nothing hidden or underhanded about them. They recognize the woman as a human being and her unborn child as a human being, and are tired of the two human beings getting pitted against each other.

[Keri]

Well...does she? DOES she deserve the death penalty?

Yes. Because any women who would get an abortion because she was raped clearly wants to punish the fetus. It's not as if she could have other motivations, like, oh, wanting to prevent the severe emotional trauma that might result from carrying and raising a rapist's child or anything. It's all about making babies pay.

Seriously, come on. Even anti-feminists ought to be able to figure out that rape is a significant feminist issue, and perhaps a group that claims to be feminist ought to have a bit more to say about the subject than "Now that you've gone and gotten yourself raped, you'd better be ready to raise that child or you're a Failure As A Woman!" I might not have quite as much of a problem with the message if they gave any indication that they understand how difficult and painful that situation can be, but they show a shocking lack of compassion in that regard that makes me seriously question their status as feminists.

[bmmg39]

"Even anti-feminists ought to be able to figure out that rape is a significant feminist issue, and perhaps a group that claims to be feminist ought to have a bit more to say about the subject than "Now that you've gone and gotten yourself raped, you'd better be ready to raise that child or you're a Failure As A Woman!""

I'll have to go back and check that poster. I don't remember any such message on it the first few times I've read it, but we are all getting older...

[Sozialismus]

If you do recognize a difference between feminism and misandry, why did you imply progressive or pro-choice feminists are misandrists?

"Well...does she [a woman apparently conceived in a rape]? DOES she deserve the death penalty? [...] [FFL] recognize the woman as a human being and her unborn child as a human being, and are tired of the two human beings getting pitted against each other."
This is a strawman argument, as most pro-choice people remain agnostic about the personhood of a foetus. Or, at best, a completely unavoidable dilemma if you accept the premise that a fertilized egg is a human being. Assuming that premise, you have two persons, one of whom has risk her life and do a lot of work to protect the life of the other, in a way that may or may not involve a lot of psychological distress. Does the former deserve to decide whether or not to go through all that? In our society, risking one's health and well-being for the life of another is usually considered heroic, but not morally necessary. Hence, the rights of two people to bodily integrity and self-preservation run headlong into each other.

I prefer to look at things in this way: we expect and trust a woman to be responsible for making the best decisions for her children, because she's the one who knows all the details of the situation. In some situations, aborting a potential child might be the best thing -- I can imagine some specific scenarios, but I'm always hearing about new ones. Maybe you don't think there are any such scenarios. But if you concede that there are or might be, then I think you should concede the autonomy to make that decision to the woman herself. If you think they're her kids, then let her decide what's best for them. It's not a perfect line of thinking, but it's a good starting place for my POV.