« Vice President Sarah Palin: It Is Over! | Home | Oh Sarah . . . »

Sarah Palin and Feminists for Life

user-pic

Many people are unfamiliar with Feminists for Life and wonder what the choice of Sarah Palin, who is against abortion rights, signals to the electorate.

Well, let me tell you something about Feminists for Life. In 2003, I decided to investigate this group and its energetic leader, Serrin Foster.
What did it mean, I wondered, to be a feminist and actively fight against the right to choose when or whether to have a child?

So I went to a church in sprawling, suburban, wealthy Danville, California to hear Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, speak on "The Feminist Case Against Abortion"
to a huge crowd of mainly high-school students.

Founded in 1972, one year before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the historic Roe vs. Wade decision that made abortion legal in the United States, Feminists for Life now focuses exclusively on practical alternatives to abortion for college-age women.

No woman, argues Foster, should ever have to choose between having a child and a career. "Abortion is a reflection that society has failed women," she tells high school and college students as she tours the country.

"Women deserve better choices," she says and points to practical alternatives and resources available to a young woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. She can choose single parenthood and use food stamps or temporary assistance to needy families. She can choose adoption. Or, college-age women can pressure school campuses to offer child care and family housing so that they never, ever, have to choose between a pregnancy and an education.

Feminism is all about having choices, Foster told me, after her talk. I couldn't agree more. Young women, she says, should have the right to bear a child and have access to high-quality, affordable child care. Again, I heartily agreed.

But Foster is cleverly disingenuous. When I asked what she does to promote child care, her answers were vague and evasive. When I read the organization's brochures aimed at campus physicians and psychologists, I found nothing about campaigning for child care. The real goal is to convince professionals to persuade young women to "choose" to bear a baby.

Despite its protestations, Feminists for Life is not really about choice. You can see this on its Web site, where the slogan "refuse to choose" appeared repeatedly. Nor does the organization challenge the real difficulties working mothers face. Instead, it cleverly appropriates the words "feminist" and "choice" to convince young women that abortion is always an unacceptable choice.

Part of the problem is that Foster either does not know her history or purposefully distorts the past. She spoke that night as though she had invented the idea of child care and describes pioneer feminists of the 1960s and 1970s as selfish, diabolical creatures who never wanted women to have the choice to bear a child.

But she's wrong. The three demands made at the first national march in New York City in 1970 included child care, equal pay for equal work and the legal right to "choose" an abortion. Many feminists, moreover, spent years trying to persuade the institutions where they worked that real equality for women required family-friendly policies, including child care.

Foster also accused Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America of supporting abortion in order to stay in business. But I had to wonder about her own financial goals when I saw, in the organization's magazine, that I could buy a "stunning new logo pin" in either sterling silver or 24-carat gold for $75.

In the end, I decided that Feminists for Life is neither about feminism nor about choice. It is a cunning attempt to convince young women that choice means giving up the right to "choose."

Sarah Palin is the inexperienced woman Sen. John McCain has chosen as his running mate, hoping that she will attract the vital female vote.. It's the worst kind of affirmative action, choosing a person he barely knows, who is completely unprepared to assume any national office. It's like nominating Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. It's all about ideology and not about competence.

To put it bluntly, Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. Nor does she have the vision and brilliance of Barack Obama. This is an incredible insult to most American women. Just how stupid does he think we are?


95 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Just how stupid does he think we are?

Dangling rhetorical questions are dangerous!

Your cute little story has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. You are stuck on being mad at some woman named Foster that doesn't happen to agree with your views. In the case of VP Palin you should celebrate every opportunity for woman have to break out of the bonds of prejudice and sexism.

user-pic

Sarah Palin isn't a woman. She's a Republican. And it is outrageous that the Republicans think that a woman who OPPOSES women's rights is an acceptable substitute for Hillary Clinton. Sarah Palin is a weak candidate, and so is John McCain. And I thank God neither one of them will spend any time in the Oval Office--except to visit our next President, Barack Obama.

user-pic

OldSarg,

connecting Palin to that group, of which she's a prominent member, is not different that your gang going after Obama for belongning to Rev White's church.

Linking Palin to FFL is nothing like Obama and Rev. Wright.

Obama dissolved his relationship with Rev. Wright when he realized the distorted statements that Rev. Wright was making.

Gov. Palin is a pround member of FFL and espouses the public beliefs of FFL. There isn't any "I wasn't aware" moment for her.

She claims to be a feminist, but that is obviously in appearance only. Under the skin, she is a pro-life at all costs conservative authoritarian.

so... palin is NOT a member of feminists for life??? is that your argument???

user-pic

How exactly does having the government forcing a woman to have a baby whether she wants one or not "break the bonds" of anything at all?

GOP logic: turning women into breeding cattle=freedom.

user-pic

How exactly does having the government forcing a woman to have a baby whether she wants one or not "break the bonds" of anything at all?

GOP logic: turning women into breeding cattle=freedom.

Hey Sarg ?

R you getting paid for your posts ?

I wish. Actually I got the day off. The Military Base I work is having a "Family Day" so I'm procrastinating mowing the lawn and no,they don't pay me for the day off either.

user-pic

She thinks you're incredibly stupid. And so does John McCain. Picking Sarah Palin, and offering her as an equivalent alternative to Hillary Clinton, shows us exactly how much contempt John McCain and the Republicans have for women. Not just women--all Americans.

The pitiful whining of a loser. Ha! If Obama had picked Hillary this would not even be an issue. The race would have been over. but NOOOOOO!!!!!! Ha!

user-pic

OldSarg, I'm gonna take pity on you because you're obviously not an intelligent man. But we'll see who's a loser. November 4. Go vote. I will too. Then, let's meet and compare results.

haha that reminds me of that Kathleen Turner line, "You're not very bright, are you? I like that in a man."

user-pic

Rabbit brain is going to expound. We're all ears.

user-pic

Mike7,

no, HE'S all ears.

Sarah Palin had her fifth child, a pre-mature baby with Down Syndrome, on April 18, 2008. What does this "pro-life" "hockey mom" do next? Two days later, she returned to work! Just what every newborn wants in a mom, especially one who is a month early, underweight, with complications. Not happy with getting out of the same room as this tender child, she decides less than five months later to get out of the state and embark on a grueling national campaign for the White House. Bye, mommy!

Your a Joke! You can't even write a simple paragraph? Change your name to Cut-n-Paste".

Do you really think that putting a woman down for working or having to work is a way of changing votes?

Mommy, where are you? I need you, mommy. I'll be good. Can't you spend time with me like you did with the others? Others can run for vice president, but I only have one mommy. Mommy?

That's funny!

user-pic

Old Sarge says:

Do you really think that putting a woman down for working or having to work is a way of changing votes?

Old Sarge, I agree, it didn't work for you guys when you viciously attacked and ridiculed Hillary in that manner.

She has put her own personal ambition ahead of the needs of her child.

user-pic

Has no one else noticed that Governor Palin was in her mid 40's when she chose to have another child? Surely she is learned enough to know that the risk of bearing a Downs child is very high at that age. My guess is that she put her anti-abortion politics ahead of her family and went ahead with what was almost certainly an accidental pregnancy, to avoid losing her right wing support. Her lack of commitment to being a new mom is obvious by her immediate refusal to be a real mother, and return to politics.

user-pic

You, Old Sarg can't write a sentence.
You wrote:
"Your a joke!"

It's "you're" (a contraction of "you are.")

"Your" is the possessive of "you."

Example:

OldSarg, you're so wrong about almost everything.

user-pic
She can choose single parenthood and use food stamps or temporary assistance to needy families.


This line caught my eye because some of the wingnut trolls in the comment sections of the Washington Post are complaining about Obama's mother using food stamps while putting herself through college.

They are apparently unaware that this is a good pro-life choice to make. How funny and sad.

Do you guys remember when this election was about some guy named.....some guy named....????? GOOOOOOO Sarah!

user-pic

As long as the election is not about Obama, Obama wins. Let it be about her.

user-pic

Keep in mind that a lot of "blue dog" women voters aren't all that comfortable with abortion, but do have a lot of interest in other so-called womens' issues. For example, Dem Gov. Bill Ritter, a Catholic, won Colorado by 17 points while being anti-abortion. My point is that to think that this is slap to all undecided women and they won't buy it is wrong thinking. That's not to say I don't think people should remind them that McCain/Palin is anti-choice, they should. Precisely because the presidential ticket has a lot more power to affect anti-choice developments than, say, a governor, and those uncomfortable with abortion are still often believers in pro-choice and "separation of church and state" as far as the law of the land is concerned. They have to be reminded that it's dangerous to choice to put such a ticket in control of the Federal government and Supreme Court nominations, but you just can't assume that McCain's choice of Palin will be taken as a slap in the face by all women, it simply won't be the case.

user-pic

I think, unfortunately, some might need a stereotype example to get what I am trying to say and I would like to add one: a working class socially conservative Latina voter with six kids doesn't worry that much about the right to have an abortion, but is very much susceptible to other women's issues when a candidate brings them up.

user-pic

Holding unborn children for ransom until the equality goals are met isn't much of a civil liberty. It is the one 'recognized' by the High Court out of place with all the others in the constitution.

user-pic

Mike7,

if I'm not mistaken, Roe v Wade was a right to privacy issue, not an abortion issue.

user-pic

Yes. The court recognized a privacy right in abortion even though the procedure itself is among the least private.

The privacy right is penumbral as it is, inferred from several amendments. I'm alright with that. It is also civil-private against other citizens not just againt government intereference. I'm alright with that.

However, to cover the action that is abortion with the privacy right is official sanction to kill innocents, giving death the benefit of the doubt on life.

There is a better way, and either way you put it: reducing unwanted pregnancies or increasing want for children risked and conceived, I'm for it.

The court recognized a privacy right in abortion even though the procedure itself is among the least private.

so where do they perform these public abortions your talking about?? are they on the tv or do they perform them in open air amphitheaters?

You're missing the point. Ruth's article isn't about promoting or debating the merits of choice, although she might support a woman's right to choose. It's about how Serrin Foster and Feminists for Life merely pay lip service to a feminism based on broader choices for women. In light of the fact that Palin belongs to this organization, it raises questions about what kind of feminist she is.

user-pic

Ruth,

Serrin Foster said:

She can choose single parenthood and use food stamps or temporary assistance to needy families. She can choose adoption. Or, college-age women can pressure school campuses to offer child care and family housing so that they never, ever, have to choose between a pregnancy and an education.

She's obviously a pro-Life Socialist. :-)

user-pic

What is of interest, and which Ruth points out, is Serrin Foster makes those statements but does not actually advocate for them...

Where is the track record of Feminist for Live legislative initiatives supporting food stamp or temporary assistance programs?

Where can we find Feminist for Live's advocacy of campus child-care or family housing?

Though I have not checked, I believe Ruth makes is clear there is none.

It's empty rhetoric and a smoke screen for anti-choice.

user-pic

Sarah Foster

user-pic

Damn... Seems I had it right the first time.

Sarrin