OK, I gave you one good thing from The Washington Post today. Now I’ll show you something not so good — an amazingly facile headline, leading to a story to match:
A feminine face for the anti-abortion movement
When I spoke to one of the nation’s most prominent anti-abortion activists this week, she was in the car, rushing to meet her 10-year-old daughter at the school bus.
“It’s not a very neat exercise,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, when I asked how she manages her work-life balance. Dannenfelser is the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which has grown to 330,000 members since she and a group of friends founded it in her living room in 1991….
Recent news stories about the new vitality of the anti-abortion movement and its legislative achievements — more than a dozen states enacting record numbers of abortion restrictions this year alone — have glossed over one crucial fact. The most visible, entrepreneurial and passionate advocates for the rights of the unborn (as they would put it) are women. More to the point: They are youngish Christian working mothers with children at home.
Really? I mean, where is the novelty in this? Are you saying you didn’t think there were women who opposed abortion? Or are you saying they weren’t feminine enough? I mean, Helen Alvaré (the first person I think of when I try to think of someone prominently identified with the pro-life movement) always seemed plenty feminine to me.
At first, I thought it was a typo. I thought that the Tweet where I saw it had been imperfectly typed or copied, and that it was supposed to say, “A feminist face for the anti-abortion movement.” There wouldn’t have been much new about that, either (I find that there are a gazillion kinds of feminists, with all sorts of views), but I could see how a copy editor who had really been sheltered — the kind who had only ever talked about such issues with people who look at the world one way — might write a headline like that. And I know plenty of such people.
But feminine? To begin with, most of the really prominent, passionate, committed people on both sides of the abortion issue tend to be women. And it has been thus for as far back as I recall being aware of such things — to Roe v. Wade, and earlier. When I think of the issue, I don’t even think of men. (I realize fully that it is very different for pro-choice feminists, who think entirely in terms of opposition to abortion being some male plot to oppress them — the currently popular overwrought phrase being “war on women.”)
The writer of this story explains the headline thusly: “These women represent a major strategic shift in the abortion war, and not just because they are generally more likeable than the old, white fathers of the pro-life movement: Jerry Falwell, Henry Hyde, Jesse Helms and Pat Robertson…”
Say what? Who in the world cares what those guys thought? I mean, having Jerry Falwell or any of those other guys take a certain position has always been, to me (and I would think to most sensible people) a reason not to agree with that position. They weren’t advocates, in the sense of anyone who might go out there and change anyone else’s mind. Those guys were cartoons; they were not factors in the minds of serious people.
When I think back to when I was forming my own thoughts on this issue — which I roughly place at the point when I started college, a couple of years before Roe — I remember the main influences on me being very strong, committed women. Off the top of my head, I can only remember two guys with whom I discussed the issue at any length during that time in my life, and they were pro-choice (although a painful personal experience later in life changed the mind of one of them, while a similar experience confirmed the other in his original position.).
I remember one woman in particular, from a few years later than that, and she is the reason I’m writing this post — because I think she had some influence on why I have an instinctive aversion to the approach of Occupy Wall Street (how’s that for throwing you a curve?). This was back in Tennessee.
I can’t remember her name now, but I remember what she looked like. Partly because she was strikingly good-looking. No one would ever have doubted her gender, or her femininity — although it wasn’t the kind of prissy look that many associate with the word. She had a dramatically good figure, which was generally casually dressed in pants and a knit top, and dark hair with a few premature gray highlights. I’m thinking she was 30ish. She was very fit. I recall her mentioning going running at night, like around 10:30, and I questioned the wisdom of her doing that alone, but I only mentioned it once. I’m sure if her husband ever expressed concern over that practice, she was just as dismissive of him. She was very confident.
I knew her from the church folk choir. This was the early 80s, and I was a brand-new Catholic. I could strum chords on a guitar, and figured I could put that to use for my parish. She — I’d better make up a name for her, to make this easier to write. I’ll call her Beth; that seems to fit.
Anyway, she and one other woman sort of ran that group, and I mostly stood back and strummed. We were all friends, and we got along great. I was vaguely aware that Beth was involved with a pro-life group, and seemed to approach it in exactly the same way she had approached her deep opposition to the Vietnam War — in the street, at the fore, on the ramparts.
This was confirmed for me in the fall of 1982. My newspaper, The Jackson Sun, was sponsoring a debate in the U.S. Senate race between the incumbent Democrat, Jim Sasser, and Republican Robin Beard. We had rented the Jackson civic center for the purpose. As one of the editors in charge of the event, it fell to me to go out and tell the various demonstrators for various causes outside that they were welcome to come in, but only if they left their signs outside and didn’t disrupt.
Next thing I knew, “Beth” was in my face, quietly literally, loudly denouncing me as the Establishment oppressor trying to silence her authentic voice. She was immune to reason. I was shocked. I mean, I agreed with her completely on the issue, but I wasn’t going to say that, because that was not my role. I was there to foster rational debate, not this chanting in the street stuff. Sasser (the true object of her ire, which also seemed off-base, he was such a bland guy) deserved to be heard, and so did Beard, without unruly cheering sections.
She was a reasonable, intelligent, warm, personable woman the rest of the time. But put her on the street with a sign in her hand and she was — I don’t know, Madame Defarge or something.
I don’t remember how we resolved that — whether she and her folks eventually came in and behaved themselves, or stayed outside chanting. I just remember the extreme discomfort of that moment of unnecessarily emotional confrontation. I remember thinking, This is no way to express or advocate political ideas.
And I still think that today.
Related Posts
That sort of turned into two separate pieces, didn’t it? That used to happen a lot with my columns, and sometimes it was three or four pieces. (In fact, I often had trouble explaining to my colleagues what I was going to write about, because I wasn’t sure which of the several things I wanted to say could be jammed together effectively, until I tried.)
But back then, I went back and ironed out the seams to where the change of subject wasn’t as jarring. I don’t have time to do that with a blog. This is a choppier form of expression.
Seriously, a post about abortion? Why not go ahead and rattle a lion cage instead. It would probably be less disruptive.
what bud said.
Moving along….
So you just didn’t get anything out of that, huh?
I thought it worth writing because it gave me a chance to express my discomfort with the shouters on both sides. Also, when I was thinking about it, I realized that experience I described was one of those that made me react negatively to street protests, and chants and signs — which is timely. And then of course I thought it would be possible for reasonable people on all sides of the issue to agree that it’s rather silly to suggest there’s anything new about opposition to abortion having a “feminine” face. Which was where I started.
In other words, my goal here was to ask people to consider the issue in the no-man’s (or no-woman’s) land between the two extremes’ barricades. Which is always my goal. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.
“My newspaper, The Jackson Sun”
So you owned a newspaper???
Just a pet peeve of mine, “My” when you don’t own the next word.
Okay, here’s something newer on the topic: what E.J. Dionne said–
That even if Roe v. Wade were struck down in its entirety,abortion would not go away–first, it would remain legal in many states. Second, the number of abortions would not go down by much–just the number if illegal ones would go up. Does it not make a lot more sense to try to reduce the number of abortions? (Hillary Clinton also proposed this way back). Better pregnancy prevention, easing adoption (he said, but I’m not so sure I agree with that one, since I am quite familiar with the process–and many of the barriers are good ones), removing a lot of the crisis aspects from what could become a wanted pregnancy: job protection, health care, child care…
one fact not much talked about on either side of the issue is that a huge number of abortions are obtained by married women who already have one or more children–not the thoughtless teenager….
Yeah, that’s what I said this morning over on this post… (I refer to your question, “Does it not make a lot more sense to try to reduce the number of abortions?”) And I think Hillary did more than talk about it, but I’m not sure how much more. In any case, I identify her with that effort.
To be clear:
1. I agree with E.J. that abortion would not go away if Roe went away. Of course, Roe must go away. That’s not the court’s proper role; it should be settled in the state legislatures.
2. I doubt that he’s right when he says “the number of abortions would not go down by much.” I think they would. There are so many natural human reasons why a person would hesitate to get an abortion that I believe raising the bar of difficult would greatly reduce the incidence. But I don’t think either he or I can prove our assertion. It’s a surmise, possibly based on what each of us would like to be true.
3. I agree with him on working together to reduce the number of abortions.
No. 3 would not only get a lot of good done — taking care of unwanted babies, for starters — it would have a positive effect across the board on our politics. This issue unnecessarily puts Americans on opposite sides of a divide they seem incapable of reaching across. Building a bridge on this would make it possible for us to work together to seek pragmatic solutions to a host of problems.
Brad, the courts proper role is the courts proper role, which is, whatever we say it is. I suppose Brown V Board should have waited for the bravery of Congress to fix that issue.
#2… I posted a link to a NY Times article about abortion rates in countries where its illegal. They are higher.
#3… Reducing the number of abortions by force of law automatically creates unwanted babies, and that is one of the primary tools you are advocating.
Now, if you want to make a policy statement that whatever is in the womb is a person, and it has rights just like any other person, well, then that’s what you are saying. You don’t like other people to have abortions for almost any conceivable reason.
Ah, but your analogy doesn’t hold water, Tim. In Brown v. Board, the court had to rule in order to overturn its own Plessy v. Ferguson.
In Roe, the court was stepping in and usurping a legislative prerogative. That it based the decision on the equally flawed Griswold v. Connecticut, which invented a constitutional right to privacy, doesn’t help much.
I actually holds water pretty well. Plessy upheld that local governmental entitities could discriminate or not as they wish. Brown made non-discrimination the law of the entire land, a complete usurpation of Congressional authority. Roe did it as well, eliminating a crazy patchwork of state and local laws across the country into one law of the land, a complete usurpation of Congressional authority. You like one; you don’t like the other.
Since single parent households comprise the majority of those living in poverty, are you prepared to also deal with that issue as an unintended consequence of limiting abortion? Also, the Freakanomics guys had done pretty extensive research to prove that the drop in crime rate over the past few decades could be pegged to Roe V Wade limiting the number of unwanted children growing up in poverty. Again, another thing to think about when banning abortion. More crime…
In answer to your question, Doug: Yes, absolutely. That’s what a consistent ethic of life is all about.
How is it a life if one has never lived?
Just for the record, many of us do not believe life begins at conception, only the potential for life.
I’m going to have to disagree slightly with Kathryn. I personally believe human life does begin at conception. But that is a decision that differs from individual to individual. But even if that is established it is not always considered wrong to take human life. It’s done in matters of self-defense or even in borderline cases involving the Castle Doctrine. It’s also done in times of war. And we execute people, sometimes the innocent, when convicted of a heinous crime. Yet somehow sanctity of life is only a consideration among conservatives when it comes to abortion. Just watch the recent GOP debate when cheers went up when Gov. Perry boasted of the number of executions he had carried out.
And again, we see how the left-right dichotomy that everyone accepts so readily is grossly inadequate. Bud may be right that people who call themselves “conservatives” fit within the stereotype box in which people who call themselves “liberals” like to put them so that they can dismiss them.
But I don’t fit in that box. Nor does Bud, really — or any of the thinking people on this blog.
Bud, I’m glad you agree with me on this point, but I have to ask: If, as you say, “human life does begin at conception,” how can it differ from individual to individual? I don’t follow you logic there or not.
Either it does or it doesn’t. It has nothing to do with the attitudes of different individuals. It does or it doesn’t.
And here’s where it gets really murky… A few of my “pro-choice” friends acknowledge that’s when life begins. They acknowledge that we’re talking about a human being, and not some other, special, worthless form of life that doesn’t deserve human consideration. They don’t try to dodge the moral implications of any of this.
And yet they still want the power of life and death to reside in the hands of that one person — the person most interested in the outcome, the most involved judge conceivable, the one person a court of law would never put in charge of a life-and-death decision.
They believe this because they believe that a woman’s political and economic power to do as she chooses in such circumstances outweighs all else.
The coldness of that calculation appalls me. Because to me, there is nothing more precious than a child.
But I know many of my friends are just as appalled that I could order military action. They see the same coldness of calculation. I can only defend myself by saying that I believe that sometimes (and pretty much every time this country overcomes its many, complex inhibitions against using force even so far as to CONSIDER it, it rises to this point) the worse action, morally considered, is to do nothing.
Seldom is that clean, or clear. And before using force, people want things clean and clear. But you seldom get that. Sometimes you come close. Say, in a situation in which a hostage-taker has a gun to the head of a child and is credibly threatening to pull the trigger, and you’re a police sniper with the criminal’s head in your sights. Then, you have a clear mandate to fire. But even then, things can go wrong. Shooting could cause a muscular spasm that would cause the target to pull the trigger anyway.
The use of force, or refusing to use force, is almost never clean and clear. You do the best you can.
For me, the moral equation with abortion is entirely different. For others, it is not, apparently. Either that, or they’re not thinking about it hard enough.
the worse action, morally considered, is to do nothing.
Seldom is that clean, or clear.
-Brad
After a very brief moment of agreement on a very difficult issue we end up with this nonsense. Since at least the Korean War this decision has almost always been crystal clear. Our initial invasion Afghanistan in 2001 is the only instance in 60 years that has actually been warranted. All the other times, including the first Gulf War, it clearly has not.
My question is always, what does an illegal abortion world look like? Its pretty clearly capital murder, if its viewed as taking a life, and if so, the very most callous taking of a life between multiple conspirators. So, is an illegal, probably unconstitutional abortion America going to execute the rogues? If not, Life in Prison? Or is it a slap on the wrist, lawsuit, public humiliation, confiscation of property?
If we suspect they plan to abort, do we contact authorities and have them detained until term? We would do that if we saw a child similarly endangered.
If life begins at conception, what about tax deductions for dependent children? Since we would either have to EPT any woman claiming a pre-natal deduction, is that acceptable, or do we consider all women to have, say 1.2 children in the oven at all times( to account for multiple births?)
Just a few issues that have to be wrestled with. Personally, I don’t like or advocate abortions, would advise folks to stick it out, but I don’t hold it against someone if they did have one.
I just accidentally ran across this thread, long afterward, and read through it. And I find myself again frustrated that because everyone got worked up over the mention of abortion, NO ONE addressed either of the points of the post: the prevalence of women in the pro-life movement, and my explanation of why I tend to have an aversion to street protests for ANY cause.
And looking back, I’m surprised at myself for not trying harder to steer the conversation back to those points. I chalk that up to fatalism: I know from long and bitter experience how hard it is to get people to focus on the ACTUAL point of any post that touches on abortion…