Talk:Feminists for Life/Archive 1

message: I think that this article should attempt to answer the following two questions:
1. Do "Feminists for Life" want to make abortions illegal, and if so do they believe there should be any exceptions?  
2. Do FfL believe that life begins at conception?
: if so do they believe there should be any exceptions? The FFL web page does not appear to answer this question so I doubt they have an official position, and I suspect its members have a diversity of opinions on the matter
No, these questions are irrelevant.  The article is a description of Feminists for Life.  For you to impose your own questions and categories is original research.  We're limited to what they say about themselves, and what reputable critics/supporters say about them.
Pianoman123 05:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two questions

message: I'm surprised to open this article and see no critical remarks on a group that's bound to generate lots of them. I'm hesitatnt of sticking the "neutrality" tag here since it's not *that* obvious, but I still don't think this article is completely neutral -RomeW 09:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true if your edit history is an indicator.  Please get a user name IrnBru001 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: "Feminists for Life (FFL) is a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, nonprofit, pro-life feminist organization"
Mmmm... non-sectarian seems either POV or redundent, no group would claim to be sectarian its a pajoritive term. 
It appears to be non-partisan as in having no party affliation/link but as you can see on partisan page partisan is more broad then this refering to "commitment to one particular party, faction, cause, or person". Seeing as they are commited to one cause (i.e. anti-abortion femininism) seems they aren't non-partisian. 
Nonprofit -> fair enough. 
Pro-life feminist,  as this is a contriversal position I think it shouldn't be presented as a simple fact.--JK the unwise 09:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is not mine but Wikipedia's (see Partisan). I don't think singing song is the right kind of course. The point about non-sectarian is that it is irrelavant because most groups would claim to be non-sectrain. I would be happy with not affliated to any particular religious group or pollitical party.--JK the unwise 10:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description 

message: To explain my revert briefly:  "non-sectarian" and "non-denominational" mean the exact same thing (they have identical dictionary entries), but they have different connotations in common use.  "Non-sectarian" is more appropriate here.  "Non-denominational" is almost always used to categorize a religious organization, and to make it distinct from others.  The use of "non-denominational" makes the assumption that a group like Feminists for Life would ordinarily be affiliated officially with a religion.  Feminists for Life is not a religious group, so "non-sectarian" is the best bet.  
Also, regarding the problems asserted above about the term, "non-sectarian", I think it is abundantly clear that it is neutral.  After all, if we were to write: "not affliated to any particular religious group or pollitical party," we assume a normativity not consistent with the spirit of neutrality.  In other words, we must simply state the facts in the most objective manner possible, not choose our words based on assumptions about what the group might be were it not non-sectarian.
Pianoman123 04:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Revert

message: Feminist tradition would include early feminists, many of whom were pro-life. Therefore "traditional feminists" are not always pro-choice. Also, feminists for life is better described as a pro-life feminist organization than simply a pro-life organization as they are both pro-life and feminist. Neitherday 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed how much content has been removed from the article in the past couple weeks. I'm going to restore the article as it was before the mass deletions took place, and any problems with the article should be hashed out individually instead of taking it out on the whole of what largely was a decent article. Neitherday 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Changes

message: I decided to include an article on Feminists for Life International, (the organization not the branch) as the article has so far focused exclusively on its abortion work, and ignored FFL's work on sex trafficking, support for the UN Millinium Goals, and monitoring of crimes committed against women around the world.
Please note the source of this new section is their website, and newsletter. Unless you dispute the information being presented, please do not complain concerning the source as it is verifiable. 216.255.11.188 07:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section

message: I've noticed some content of the article has been moved into a new trivia. However, according to WP:TRIVIA, trivia sections should be avoided. The text should be reincorporated back into the article.
::The content in that section seems to be an advertisement for Feminists for Life —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bremskraft (talk • contribs).
:::Exactly how is the discussion of the death of their leaders in a car accident an advertisement? How is discussing notable (i.e. celebrity) activists an advertisement either? Perhaps it should be renamed "notable activists" to reduce POV, but the section is definitely not an ad. Neitherday 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I changed the title and deleted the advertising paragraphs --Bremskraft 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you deleted was not simply advertising. For instance, you removed any mention at all of Margaret Colin. I agree the article needs to be improved, but let's discuss problem text here first and come to a consensus. Neitherday 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph she was mentioned in was completely an advertisement. --Bremskraft 22:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I fail to see how the March for Life is irrelevant. It not only directly discusses FFL's activities but also their interaction with other groups such as Atheists for life. Neitherday 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely relevant.  It just needs to be put in the correct area.  It probably best goes under the "Organization" section. --131.216.41.16 21:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: March for Life

message: The fact tags added today Feminist for life all state a date of "February 2007" when in fact it is august. The person who made these edits needs to correct this. It would be extremely difficult for me to fix the edits without accidentally disrupting any fact dates that are legitimately 2007 and the only reasonable way for me to fix the problem myself would be to revert the edits entirely. Neitherday 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy and paste error.  Sorry. --Bremskraft 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please fix them in a timely manner. I do not want to revert all of the edits from today, but if I can think of no other way I can reasonable fix this problem without spending an inordinate amount of time on it. The problem is significant, as generally some time is allotted to source material and a tag dated February makes it seem that time has long been up. Neitherday 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2-3 Copy and paste errors fixed--Bremskraft 22:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "2-3"? There was a whole lot more than that. Neitherday 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact Tags

message: I attempted to fix the content that has been axed in this article, but there was such a large number of rapidly occuring edits and text moves along with deletions that doing so is far from an easy process. I've reverted this article to the last stable version until a new consensus can be achieved. Neitherday 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've reverted those edits again as they were too sweeping and seemed to be deleting valid NPOV content and references. I've left a message for Bremskraft in hopes that no edit warring will take place. If you want a particular section looked at for an extra opinion I'm happy to help. The article certainly needs help but not so heavy-handed - at least not without consensus. Benjiboi 23:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are the edits.  Let's talk further: 
Feminists for Life of America (FFL) is a non-sectarian, non-partisan, non-profit pro-life feminist organization established in 1972. The organization describes itself:
"[FFL] seeks real solutions to the challenges women face. Our efforts are shaped by the core feminist values of justice, nondiscrimination, and nonviolence. Feminists for Life of America continues the tradition of early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, who opposed abortion.FFL's Mission Statement
"Feminists for Life of America recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women. We are dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic, woman-centered solutions. Women deserve better than abortion."The American Feminist vol. 12 no. 1, p. 5
Feminists for Life maintains that being pro-life is compatible with feminism, and, further, that it is the natural conclusion of feminist values. Members and supporters of the organization claim that being a pro-life feminist "is not an oxymoron, it's redundant". The president of the group, Serrin Foster, describes the organization as opposed to all forms of abortion, including those in case of rape, incest, birth defects, or to preserve the mother's life or health, which is broadly defined in the Supreme Court's Doe v. Bolton decision.Text of Doe v. Bolton from FindLaw.com
Feminists for Life describes its broader vision: "FFL members oppose all forms of violence, including abortion, as they are inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, nonviolence and nondiscrimination."O'Brien, Nancy, and Foster, Serrin, "Women's Groups March in Wrong Direction", The American Feminist, Summer 1995   Basic human rights, including the right to life, extend from conception (understood as the first formation of a human zygote) until the end of natural life, according to FFL.The American Feminist - volume 10, no. 1, page 4 Therefore, FFL is opposed to euthanasia,The Euthanasia/Abortion Connection infanticide,Desperate Young Women Kill Their Newborn Babies: Fighting a Culture of Violence and child abuse.Child Abuse: Abortion and the Battered Child FFL does not take an official stance on contraception.Feminists for Life, Frequently Asked Questions
Feminists for Life also seeks the traditional feminist goal of equality in the workplace.Equality in the Workplace
Background
Though Feminists for Life was formed in 1972, FFL professes to "stand on more than two hundred years of pro-life feminist history,".  Feminists for Life believe they are continuing the tradition of early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, whom they claim opposed abortion. Some historians and sociologists disagree with this assertion (see Controversy section) "Without known exception," Feminists for Life president Serrin Foster states "the early feminists condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms."Foster, Serrin, "The Feminist Case Against Abortion", The American Feminist vol. 11 nos. 2-3, p. 29
History
Feminists for Life was founded in Ohio in 1972. Goltz and Callaghan met in a judo club on the campus of Ohio State University, where Callaghan was a tenured professor of linguistics. Goltz was expelled from the Columbus, Ohio, Chapter of the National Organization for Women ("NOW") in 1974, for arguing that abortion violated feminist principles. (National NOW declined to expel Ms. Goltz from the National organization.) Callaghan would later voluntarily opt out of NOW, as the organization added planks that she did not consider to be women's issues.
Feminists for Life and the National Organization for Women
Goltz and dozens of other pro-life feminists picketed the National Organization for Women (NOW) convention, hoping to draw attention to being expelled by the Columbus, Ohio NOW chapter. The plan backfired when most media sources failed to pick up the story, and the few that did only mentioned that the pickets were by a pro-life group, failing to convey the full meaning of the protest.
Goltz later drew attention to the growing trend of pro-life feminism and what she perceived as hostility by other feminists.  While testifying before a Congressional panel in 1975, Ms Goltz stated "The National Organization for Women suppresses any woman who is pro-life. It does not matter how sincere her feminism on the basic issues..." (Senate Testimony, 1975)
The Equal Rights Amendment
Feminists for Life was active in the ten-year battle to ratify the ill-fated Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The organization's commitment to the ERA formed  during Goltz's presidency. In 1973, Goltz published an article (included in the anthology, Pro-Life Feminism: Yesterday and Today) disparaging the fact that the widespread fear of abortion on-demand had blocked the ratification of ERA in Ohio at the time, and that it would eventually kill the amendment's ratification.
Like many feminist groups of the women's liberation movement, the personal experiences of members of Feminists for Life were what informed their drive for equality and social justice. Many pro-life feminists had experiences with pregnancy discrimination, abortion, rape and child molestation.  Their stories were published in various journals, newsletters, and other publications.  Many of these stories were included in the anthology, Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices.
1977 - present
After five years as President of Feminists for Life, Goltz retired. In 1977, organizational management was moved to Wisconsin. The group's activities focused on being a presence at both pro-life and feminist events, distributing literature and writing letters to various publications. A national workshop that became an annual conference for pro-life feminists was launched during this time. Many members supported both the Equal Rights Amendment and a Human Life Amendment as "complementary in their concern for human life.""Reflecting as FFL Celebrates Its Tenth Birthday" and "HLA and ERA—Inedible Alphabet Soup?" in Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices, , pp. 17 & 35 
In 1984, FFL's headquarters was moved to Kansas City, Missouri. Feminists for Life began to receive more national exposure during this time, through media interviews, involvement in a broad spectrum of pro-life issues, and invitations to speak at pro-life events.
In 1994, the organization relocated its national office to Washington, D.C., where Feminists for Life reorganized its structure, and updated its image: the Sisterlife newsletter was renamed as The American Feminist magazine, a website was created, and new outreach programs were developed, including the College Outreach Program. FFL also became more involved in political advocacy, working to ensure the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and enhanced enforcement for child support.  Child exclusion provisions in the Welfare Reform Act were opposed by FFL.  
At the 2002 March for Life, which observes the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, several members of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians were arrested for attempting to march under the PLAGAL banner, on the orders of Nellie Gray, holder of the permit for the march, Feminists for Life Executive Director Serrin Foster came out publicly in support of PLAGAL, saying she also had had similar run-ins with Gray in the past.
In mid-2005, the organization's building closed without warning, Feminists for Life moved their headquarters to Alexandria, Virginia. 
On February 15, 2006, Susan B. Anthony's birthday, the first major Congressional discussions on the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Students Act began. On October 2, 2006 FFL President Serrin Foster announced the launch of a national web campaign to promote their pro-woman/pro-life message. The campaign includes a pro-life feminist response to the traditional pro-choice arguments for abortion.  (Primary source: Rosemary Oelrich Bottcher, "The Conception and Life of FFL", The American Feminist vol. 9 no. 2, pp. 3-6.)
Support for Women's Suffrage
The Susan B. Anthony House
The birthplace of Susan B. Anthony in Adams, Mass., was purchased by Carol Crossed, a board member of Feminists for Life of New York.http://www.sbabirthplace.com/MediaMR08312006.htm While Feminists for Life does not own the Susan B. Anthony birthplace, but will help maintain the property, concurrently developing a plan to perpetuate the legacy of Susan B. Anthony. On the property is a yellow rosebush that was originally planted by Anthony's mother.  The yellow rose eventually became a symbol of the suffragettes, in their fight for women's suffrage.
Feminists for Life International
Feminists for Life International is the international organization beyond its national groups Feminists for Life of America, and Feminists for Life of Ireland, which focus's on international scale violation of womens rights, paticularly poverty, sex trafficking, domestic violence and abortion.
Feminists for Life of Ireland
Feminists for Life also has an international branch in Ireland, known as Feminists for Life of Ireland. The group was once headed by Irish feminist Breda O'Brien.  
Feminists For Life New Zealand (1978-1983)
Originally founded in response to correspondence with American founder Goltz, Feminists for Life New Zealand (1978-1983) was founded by Connie Purdue (who also founded the New Zealand National Organization for Women) and romance writer Daphne Clair de Jong, who, like their American counterparts Goltz and Callaghan, found themselves at odds with the feminist establishment's endorsement of abortion.http://www.prolife.org.au/articles/abth003.htm 
Feminists for Life of New Zealand is no longer associated with Feminists for Life of America. It has been known since 1984 as "Women for Life." Although it began as a pro-life feminist organization, the organization gradually changed from a secular liberal organization to a Christian conservative organization, reflecting the changing views of its founder Connie Purdue (1912-2000). It now focuses solely on fetal life, in contrast to FFL's pro-woman, pro-life approach.
International Outreach Program
In 2004, Feminists for Life launched an International Outreach Program, reflecting that the issue of abortion is global.http://www.feministsforlife.org/international/index.htm FFL International index According to FFL's "Global Vision":
Feminists for Life advocates for
*increased education standards and opportunities for the poor, especially for girls
*increased employment opportunities for all women, especially poor women and others who have been excluded
*micro-loans and other business assistance for low-income women to start businesses and purchase land
*health care for mother and child, before and after birth, including prenatal care, assisted delivery, postpartum care, emergency services, immunizations, disease prevention and treatment, especially for the HIV/AIDS pandemic
*sustainable development that provides clean water, sanitation, housing and food
*child care for the working poor and regulations to protect vulnerable women and children from forced labor
*protection for women and children from violence, including sex trafficking
*measures to rescue women trapped in domestic violence
-The American Feminist vol. 12 no. 1, p. 20
In 2005, FFL was granted special consultative status as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) by the United Nations' Economic and Social Council.http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/PRUN2-05.htm "New Voice for Women and Children at United Nations"
Outreach Programs
The American Feminist
The American Feminist is the newsletter of the national Feminists for Life organization. Topics include "Crimes Against Women Around the World," "Victory Over Violence," "Remarkable Pro-Life Women," "Our Pro-Woman, Pro-Life Legacy," "FFL On Campus: The Revolution Continues," and "Pro-Woman Answers to Pro-Choice Questions." http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/index.htm
FFL on college campuses
In 1994, leaders of Feminists for Life began to speak to students at college campuses about the history of pro-life feminism, and the difficulties faced by pregnant and parenting women in the workplace and higher education, proposing "creative, life-affirming, women-centered solutions." 
(Primary source: The American Feminist vol. 11 nos. 2-3.)
Women Deserve Better Campaign
FFL has undertaken several campaigns to highlight what they see as the false choice of sacrificing a woman's education and career changes or sacrificing having children.http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/Some%20Feminists%20Not%20Marching.htm "Some Feminists Won't Participate in 'March for Women's Lives'" FFL's legislative goals include the passage of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act.  The act was introduced into Congress by Senator Elizabeth Dole on November 8, 2005, and by Congresswoman Melissa Hart on November 9, 2005. The first Capitol Hill briefing on the legislation took place on Susan B. Anthony's birthday, February 15, 2006.  http://www.feministsforlife.org/ECS/index.htm Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act
Controversy
Some historians have asserted that Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion because at the time was an unsafe medical procedure for women, endangering their health and life.http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blanthony.htm  Pulitzer prize winner Stacy Schiff has discussed Anthony's opposition to abortion, saying that "...[although] Anthony deplored abortion, in 19th century abortion was life-threatening [and] it is impossible to know what Anthony would make of today's debate." Schiff cautions that "...thrusting historical figures into contemporary debate is treacherous because argument can be made for anything when words are taken out of context..." Stacy Schiff, "Desperately Seeking Susan," (Op-Ed), New York Times, October 13, 2006.
An article in pro-choice publication The Touchstone (2000) provides the following commentary on the relationship between the ERA and Alice Paul's views on abortion:
Alice Paul did oppose the linkage between the ERA and abortion, but that was because of her political astuteness rather than any disagreement with abortion. Paul felt that by linking the ERA with abortion, the ERA would not pass through Congress. Willis wrote, "She did not address issues of birth control, i.e., abortion, or even women's sexuality, and was concerned that the radical women of the 1960s might alienate support by emphasizing these issues...[S]he said that even if women did want to do many things that she wished they would not do with their freedom, it was not her business to tell them what to do with it, but to see that they had it."[19] This demonstrates that Alice Paul supported equal rights for women, including the right to choose abortion...Finlay, B., C. Walther, and A. Hinze "What the Founders of Feminism Really Thought About Abortion" The Touchstone, Vol. X, No. 3, Summer 2000.
This article however directly conflicts with an statement published by right-to-life activist Mary Meehan, from an interview with a colleague of Paul's:
When I worked with Alice Paul [suffragist and leader of the National Woman's Party] I asked her about the abortion question - point blank. She said directly, "Abortion is just another way of exploiting women." Then she went on to explain that the National Woman's Party was organized for the benefit of women. Killing female babies was no way to benefit or protect women.Evelyn K. Samras-Judge in an interview with Mary Meehan on March 21, 1986. "Life Quotes."  Meehan Reports. Retrieved on: July 22, 2007 
One quote by Mattie BrinkerhoffMore information about the author, early American feminist Mattie Brinkerhoff, is available in Louise R. Noun's history Strong Minded Women: The Emergence of the Woman-Suffrage Movement in Iowa (Iowa State University Press; 1969). from a letter to the editor in The Revolution in particular appears on the inside front cover of almost every issue of FFL's magazine, The American Feminist: "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."The Revolution, 4(9):138-9, September 2, 1869.
Notable members
Chapter presidents
Mary Dwelley, the president of Feminists for Life of New York, was killed in a car wreck on April 11, 2006. 
Carol Crossed, a board member of Feminists for Life of New York, purchased the Massachusetts birth place of Susan B. Anthony on August 5, 2006. 
Celebrity activists
*Two-time Emmy Award winning actress Patricia Heaton is honorary chair of Feminists for Life. 
*Actress Margaret Colin is honorary co-chair of Feminists for Life. 
*Jane Sullivan Roberts, wife of U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, is counsel to the organization and a former Vice-President.  The controversy this engendered during Roberts' confirmation hearings, when his positions on abortion were challenged, led to great focus on the group; according FFL's president, "[w]e've had our share of media attention, but I've never seen anything like what is happening in the mainstream press right now" .
--Bremskraft 03:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting how your account was created immediately after I warned Bremskraft they had violated WP:3RR and the only other article you have edited is another article that has been recently heavily edited by Bremskraft. Neitherday 03:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear that Neitherday has a point of view and is unwilling to accept edits to this page. --Ladeda76 05:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're reading my writing, you might want to note that I am pro-choice. Neitherday 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to note for newcomers to this page that the POV I'm likely being accused of here is being pro-life. Even if I were pro-life, that alone would not invalidate my edits to this page. All humans have a POV, the goal is to leave that POV out of our edits. Neitherday 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And you look like another new account, created after I reported the 3RR, though I can't tell if you are a sock puppet as well or not so I'll assume good faith for now that you're not. Neitherday 05:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't normally post with anything but an IP, but this was brought to my attention and I'm ready to help out. --Ladeda76 05:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Might I ask the manner in which this was "brought to [your] attention"? Neitherday 05:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it turns out you were a sock puppet after all. . Neitherday 14:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Consensus Needed

message: I'm removing the "in need of expert" cleanup template . The cleanup template is typically used on underdeveloped articles, this one is pretty well developed. If the template removal is disputed, it can alway be put back up. Neitherday 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert tag