Thesis Proposal Abortion

Jessica R. DreistadtThesis Proposal: Progressive Pro-Life Organizations in the United StatesMay 4, 2006

I. Research Question

This thesis will analyze how liberal and conservative political groups have influenced

the strategies and tactics, resource development and mobilization, collaboration activities, and

membership base of national progressive pro-life membership organizations.

II. Introduction

Abortion attitudes in the United States seem to be aligned with political beliefs.

Conservative parties, such as the Republican Party, favor a pro-life position while liberal parties,

such as the Democratic Party, take a pro-choice stance. Many individual attitudes about abortion

do not follow the expected pattern. Pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans are among

those whose beliefs about abortion are not usually represented in the abortion debate. In

response, organizations have developed to support and further the beliefs of these people.

This thesis will examine the four national progressive pro-life membership

organizations: Feminists for Life, Democrats for Life, the Consistent Life Network, and

PLAGAL (Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians). The term ‘progressive’ will be used in this

thesis because some of these organizations are nonpartisan 501c(3) nonprofits; ‘liberal’ would be

inappropriate for this reason. The word ‘feminist’ will refer to a subgroup of progressives whose

writing and organizing specifically relates to the role as women in our society.

Some progressives are pro-life because of their religious beliefs. The Catholic Church

forbids abortion; in many cases, this religious belief outweighs individual political ideology.

Other pro-life liberals adopt this position based their beliefs related to civil rights of the unborn,

the social and economic status of women in society, anti-capitalism, and pacifism.

Dreistadt 1

Pro-life progressivism is a timely topic. In the Pennsylvania, two major party pro-life

candidates are vying for a U.S. Senate seat this year. Bob Casey, Jr. is on the Democratic ticket

and Rick Santorum is representing the Republican Party. A pro-choice independent candidate,

Kate Michelson, is considering running for this office. The outcome of this election may

demonstrate the importance of the abortion issue among Pennsylvania voters.

This is also an important topic because pro-life progressivism has, for the most part,

been ignored by the popular media and overlooked by academics. While much academic

attention has been given to the abortion debate in general, a thorough academic examination of

progressive pro-life organizations has not yet been conducted.

Abortion is a topic that people tend to have strong feelings about, often leading to

raucous debate - sometimes to violence. This also makes it an interesting topic for sociological

exploration. The exercise of scientifically examining an issue that is so emotionally charged

provides an excellent learning experience for a sociologist in training.

III. Literature Review

There has been little academic research about the progressive and feminist pro-life

movements. Therefore, this literature review heavily leans on popular source materials

specifically about this topic in addition to academic books and articles about the pro-life and pro-

choice movements in general.

First, I will examine the reasons why progressives adopt pro-life beliefs. Next, public

opinion about abortion is considered; polls reveal that individual beliefs are complex and not

necessarily tied to political ideology. I will then discuss how the feminist movement and

Democratic Party have controlled the abortion debate and excluded progressives who are pro-

Dreistadt 2

life. This leads to the history the progressive and feminist pro-life movements and an analysis of

those organizations’ current status.

Progressive and Feminist Pro-Life Arguments

There are a variety of progressive and feminist arguments that support a pro-life position.

They mostly relate to civil and human rights, individualism, capitalism, sexism, nonviolence.

Social Class Discrimination and Fetal Rights

Some progressive pro-lifers view the unborn as a distinct social class discriminated upon

by pro-choice activists. Abortion is framed as a civil rights issue and aborted fetuses are the

victims. Feminist writers Rosemary Bottcher (1985:45) and Brenda O’Brien (1997:29) argue

that feminists, who advocate for the rights of one oppressed group (women), base their own

liberation on the oppression of another group (the unborn). A class-based perspective has also

been used to compare abortion to slavery in the United States. Feminist pro-lifer Gale Grenier

Sweet posits anti-abolitionist arguments within the framework of pro-choice logic, “What would

happen to the slaves once they were free?…Wouldn’t their lives be miserable with poverty and

starvation?” (1985:6). Pro-life progressives who adopt a class-based perspective on the issue

have also compared abortion to genocide, in particular, the Holocaust. Activist Daphne de Jong

believes that discrimination against the fetus is provoked by its different appearance (1985:54-

55). She compares this to Hitler’s selection of Aryans over Jews.

Pro-life progressives also frame abortion as a human rights issue. They often describe

the unborn as “weak,” “vulnerable,” “helpless,” and “defenseless.” When the value of human

life becomes subjective, the possibilities for abuse could become perilous. Activists have

referred to this as a “deadly game” (Voss Koch, 1985:19) and a “horrible precedent” (Roth).

Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has since retracted his pro-life stance, once said, “if incompleteness

Dreistadt 3

were the criteria for taking life we would all be dead.” Some progressive pro-lifers are fearful of

a society that justifies the elimination of ‘undesirables.’

Anti-Capitalism

The use of the word ‘choice’ by abortion supporters and its underlying meaning is

interpreted, by some progressive pro-lifers, to be a symptom of a highly individualistic society.

This conflicts with progressive ideology, which leans toward the communal. Researcher Faye

Ginsburg explains that some pro-life activists, “are concerned that materialism and narcissism

are displacing nurturant ties of kin and community” (1989:8-9). Choice, therefore, is also

understood within the realm of consumerism. O’Brien articulates this point, “it is only in a

culture where independence is the ultimate value (and consumerist choice an expression of that

value) that dependency becomes a crime punishable by ending the life of the dependent”

(1997:31). Jim Trageser, a progressive pro-lifer, explains, “the quality of life…comes down to

consumerist values” (1998). Feminist Ali Browning believes individualism should be moderated

to ensure human rights. “The right to liberty ends where the next person’s rights begin. Power

and ownership breeds…the notion that there is a right to kill and abuse” (1997:59). Researcher

Carol Maxwell confirms that this sentiment was present among pro-lifers in St. Louis, MO,

“activists repeatedly argued that abortion undermined a collective responsibility to care for

women who were in need” (2002:188).

Some pro-life progressives believe the practice of abortion is supported, if not

encouraged, by capitalism. They think the pro-choice movement sees the fetus as the personal

property of the mother, who may dispose of the property as she wishes. Browning explains, “the

‘property ethic’ has been and is still used to excuse much injustice and acts of cruelty and

oppression” (1997:59). Progressive pro-lifers can be leery of the abortion industry because it

Dreistadt 4

profits from the legalization and practice of abortion (see Ginsburg, 1989:9, 56 and Maxwell,

2002:36).

Feminism

The individualism argument is also used by pro-life progressives and feminists to explain

the alienation of women who face an unplanned pregnancy. Rachel MacNair, director of the

Consistent Life Network’s Institute for Integrated Social Analysis, explains, “presuming that

pregnant women should make decisions on alone places them in social isolation, robbing them of

support they need and have a right to” (1997:75). Luker explains that the pro-life worldview

leads to the belief that abortion “diminishes male responsibility” because men are removed from

this decision making process (1984:161). The pro-life feminist and progressive believe

responsibility for unexpected pregnancies should be shared by both men and women.

Pro-life feminists believe that pro-choice policies favor the needs of men and that men

have manipulated the argument to make it seem that women are in control. Feminist pro-lifers

Kathleen Buckley and Monika Rodman commented, “It is most often men whom abortion

liberates” (2005:A-27). To pro-life feminists, the legalization of abortion provides men with

sexual and financial freedom and unduly burdens women with the responsibility of choosing

whether or not to bear a child that the man may not desire. Juli Loesch, founder of Prolifers for

Survival (which was dissolved in 1987) comments, “how quickly “woman’s right to choose”

comes to serve “man’s right to use” (1985a:185).

Like the unborn, women are an oppressed group in American culture. This status creates

an environment that supports pro-abortion beliefs. The ability to bear children is viewed as a

disadvantage by society and abortion biologically equalizes women with men (see Roth; Grenier

Sweet, 1985:4; Luker, 1984:202; and MacNair, 1997:83). Pro-life progressives and feminists

Dreistadt 5

believe that women’s ability to bear children distinguishes them in a natural and positive way.

O’Brien articulates this view, “we are not solely defined by our biology, but we are not degraded

and burdened by it, except when society refuses us adequate respect and support” (1997:32).

Ginsburg wrote that the pro-life activists she studied believe, “social changes that could be

interpreted as casting reproduction and childrearing as a liability are antiwoman” (1989:7).

Some pro-life feminists believe that women justify the practice of abortion because they have

internalized their own oppression (see O’Brien, 1997:30, and Krane Derr, 1997:14).

Abortion is also seen by some as a temporary, short-term solution to the difficulties that

women face. Feminists pro-lifer Nina Kohl explains, “abortion is a symptom of, not a solution

to, the problems women confront in society” (2005). Activists advocate for reforms including

child care funding, maternity leave, contraception, sex education, economic justice, involvement

of fathers, to reduce the number of abortions (see Meehan, 1985; Kohl, 2005; Schaeffer, 2000;

Browning, 1997:65; O’Brien, 1997:36; and Randolph Pearcey, 1985:207).

Some pro-life progressives believe that women are led to abortion because of society’s

failing; therefore, society should be adjusted rather than women’s biological functions. Feminist

pro-lifer Frederica Matthews-Green made an analogy between a woman seeking an abortion and

“an animal, caught in a trap, [who] wants to gnaw its leg off in order to get free” (in MacNair,

1997:76). MacNair supports Matthews-Green by adding, “the kind and just thing to do is to let

the animal out of that trap. Even better yet, ensure there is no trap” (1997:76).

Nonviolence

Pro-life progressives and feminists who practice nonviolence believe that abortion

violates the natural process of life. “Pro-life leftists believe that a legally sanctioned killing,

whether it be the execution of an adult criminal or an unwanted fetus, violates the tenets of

Dreistadt 6

liberation and freedom” (Trageser, 1992). The left’s support of abortion, which is seen as an

obstruction of nature and violence against unborn children, is considered to be hypocritical since

the left traditionally supports peace and conflict resolution. Women’s ability to create is viewed

as a sacred capacity that should not be diminished. This has both a religious and a secular

dimension. Rev. Jim Wallis believes that pro-life progressivism is, “consistent with a

commitment to nonviolence as a gospel way of life” (2004).

Individual Attitudes and Public Opinion about Abortion

Many factors shape an individual’s beliefs about abortion: religion, political party,

values, personal experience, and socioeconomic status. Public opinion about abortion does not

neatly divide along pro-life and pro-choice lines; most Americans’ views are moderate, not

extreme or categorically exclusive (see Cook, Jelen and Wilcox, 1992:11, 166 and Luker,

1984:227).

The 2004 General Social Survey asked respondents to rank their political beliefs along a

continuum ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. A series of questions about

abortion were also included in the survey. These questions ask respondents whether or not they

think abortion should be legal in various circumstances. In all cases, more than half of the

liberals surveyed support the right to choose. However, the percentage that is supportive has a

wide range from 56.11% to 91.86% depending on the scenario. Cross-tabulations on abortion

attitudes and political beliefs show some degree of correlation between the two variables. The

following shows the percent of extremely liberal, liberal, and liberal-leaning respondents who

think abortion should be legal and the correlation of the entire survey sample for each question.

GSS Question Percent of liberals who agree

Pearson’s R Spearman Correlation

206. Should abortion be legal if there is a strong change of serious defect in the baby?

83.71% .138 .249

207. Should abortion be legal if she is married and does 56.11% .073 .213

Dreistadt 7

not want any more children? 208. Should abortion be legal if the woman’s own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy?

91.86% .113 .188

209. Should abortion be legal if the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children?

63.35% .155 .291

210. Should abortion be legal if she became pregnant as a result of rape?

84.16% .090 .225

211. Should abortion be legal if she is not married and does not want to marry the man?

58.82% .089 .241

212. Should abortion be legal if the woman wants it for any reason?

56.56% .091 .233

Gallup’s 2005 poll on values and beliefs found that 51% of Democrats think abortion is

morally acceptable, as compared to 29% of Republicans. This conflicts with the Democratic

Party’s position which supports legalization, and therefore the collective moral acceptance, of

abortion. Because the political party platform excludes members with differing views on this

issue, and because there is a significant percentage that disagrees with the party’s position,

progressive pro-life organizations provide an opportunity for these people to express and practice

their views.

Constraints of Political Parties and the Feminist Movement

Abortion has been a highly politicized issue over the past several decades. The two

major political parties in the United States have adopted distinct positions on this issue. The

Republican Party platform states, “We are opposed to abortion…we endorse legislation to make

it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children” (Republican

Party, 2004). The Democratic Party platform states that, “abortion should be safe, legal, and

rare” (Democratic Party, 2004: 38). Because of this split, some pro-life progressives have a

difficult time being accepted as liberals implicitly – by being pigeonholed as a conservative

(Ginsburg, 1989:126) or explicitly - by being excluded from participation in party activities.

David R. Carlin, Jr. calls pro-life Democrats “political pariahs.”

Dreistadt 8

Pro-life Democrats are sanctioned by their peers for this belief. Some have been

removed from committees with jurisdiction over the abortion issue (Meehan, 2003a:15 and

Barnes, 1996) and others, including Richard Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich, have been forced to

change their position on abortion in order to gain the party’s nomination for President (Meehan,

2003a:65, 72 and Cook, Jelen and Wilcox, 1992:166). The late Governor Casey of Pennsylvania

was prevented from speaking at the 1992 national convention (Meehan, 2003b:74 and Carlin,

1992:A17)

In 2005, Gallup polled members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) about the

position they would like the party to take on various issues. Only 40% of the 233 members

surveyed thought that the party should only choose a pro-choice candidate as the next DNC

chair. Fifty percent (50%) felt that the next chair should not necessarily be pro-choice and 10%

had no opinion. The views of membership may not be accurately reflected in the Democratic

Party’s leadership and platform.

Pro-life progressives are challenged to weigh their beliefs about abortion with their

feelings about other important issues (see Norton Humphry, 1998 and Price, 1992). A 2004

survey conducted by Gallup found that 19% of voters completely base their decision on

candidates’ position on abortion.

Abortion rights are a “sacred cow of the feminist movement” (Kennedy, 1997:42). Like

the Democratic Party, the feminist movement has alienated and expelled feminists who hold

nonconformist views on abortion.

The exclusion of pro-life Democrats and feminists from participation troubles pro-life

progressives at a level fundamental to their political beliefs. Pro-life feminists compare control

of this issue by feminist leaders to men’s oppression and control of women (Mahkorn, 1985:15

Dreistadt 9

and Kennedy, 1997:4). Nina Kohl commented, “The Democratic Party’s intolerance of dissent

on the abortion issue erodes our credibility when we claim to be the party of inclusion and

diversity” (2005). It also concerns pro-life progressives that leaders suppress free speech

(Kennedy, 1997: 2, 4). Indeed, feminists and progressive publications rarely print articles from

this perspective (Kennedy, 1997:8-9 and Farmer, 1997:54).

History of the Progressive and Feminist Pro-life Movements

During the first wave of feminism, activists were opposed to abortion. “Their concern

was empowering women to protect themselves against sexual and reproductive damage that

resulted from the exploitation, deceit, and coercion typical of unequal relationships” (Krane

Derr, 1997:18). Feminist beliefs about abortion were related to “the abolition of slavery,

elimination of the death penalty and other harsh sentences, improvement of labour conditions,

peace, challenging child abuse and child labour, opposing injustice against indigenous peoples,

and…vegetarianism and animal welfare” (Krane Derr, 1997:21). This view of abortion remained

among feminists until the 1960s (Krane Derr, 1997:13, 22). In the time following Roe v. Wade,

the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion, many pro-life activists were pacifists

whose values were quite different of those associated with anti-abortionists today (Ginsburg,

1989:47). “They blended often intense anti-establishment liberalism and utopian yearnings with

opposition to abortion” (Maxwell, 2002:240).

In the 1980s, the Republican Party began to officially support the pro-life position.

During this same time, the most noticed pro-life activism involved right-wing extremists who

used tactics such as coercion and even violence. This, “suggests a shift on the part of a minority

away from relatively passive attempts to “save babies” toward more aggressive attempts to

control others’ behavior” (Maxwell, 2002:79).

Dreistadt 10

Jennifer Strickler and Nicholas L. Danigelis found that liberal political beliefs aligned

with the pro-choice position in the 1980s (197). The Democratic Party has been overwhelmingly

pro-choice since this time (Barnes, 1992 and Cook, Jelen and Wilcox, 1992:58). Mary Meehan

offered a detailed account of the Democratic Party’s evolving position on abortion in a recent

article (2003a). In the 1970s, many Democrats openly opposed abortion. In the 1980s, the

Democrats strengthened their pro-choice position and many members left the party because of

their pro-life conviction (2003a:70). At the 1996 national convention, the party’s platform

officially opened up membership and participation to Democrats who disagreed on the issue, “we

respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all

our members to participate at every level of our party.” Through 2000, the party supported

several pro-life Congressional candidates (2003a:75). The Democratic Party’s stance on

abortion has reacted and responded to the political climate both within the party and in

Washington to secure the most politically advantageous position.

Movement and Organization Building

Progressive pro-life organizations are affected by their pro-choice competition. Success

and failure of the opposition changes the political, legal, and financial environment these

organizations navigate. These changes lead to organizational and tactical reactions as well as

changes in individual activist behavior. For example, “political circumstances that favored legal

abortion tended to reduce the number of people supporting pro-life direct action, but they also

galvanized those who remained active” (Maxwell, 2002:88). This threat to the core values of

pro-life activists increases their engagement with the issue. Opposition success can also generate

financial support, leading to increased infrastructure and more sophisticated communications

techniques (see Maxwell, 2002: 87, 145). David S. Meyer and Suzanne Staggenborg identified

Dreistadt 11

three conditions necessary for countermovement growth: victories have been obtained by the

mainstream movement, the interests of countermovement members are placed in jeopardy, and

the support of political elites has been gained (1996:1635).

Social movements can also influence the political and organizational environment.

Meyer and Staggenborg found that movements can affect public discourse, coalition

development, and policy outcomes and that they can, “create or magnify critical events, to which

their opponents can respond” (1996:1634).

Several other factors influence the movement: legislation and court rulings, the political

climate, and membership composition. Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings have led the

opposition to react. The party in control of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of

state and federal government guides the way issues are selected and framed and influences the

development of organizations. The social, economic, and religious background of activists

influence organizational structure, communication, and tactics (see Maxwell, 2002:80, 119).

Progressive pro-life organizations are similarly affected by other progressive and pro-life

organizations that do not welcome opposing viewpoints. The development of these

organizations and the construction of their advocacy efforts have been stimulated by the absence

of a mainstream outlet for this particular belief.

There are currently five national progressive pro-life organizations. They are Feminists

for Life, Democrats for Life, the Consistent Life Network, and the Prolife Alliance of Gays and

Lesbians (PLAGAL). Each varies in terms of their mission, size, membership, and activities.

All have evolved to give a voice and presence to pro-life progressives since mainstream pro-life

and progressive organizations do not intersect.

Dreistadt 12

Feminists for Life is a national organization with over 5000 members. It was formed in

1972 with former members of the National Organization for Women who disagreed with their

platform on abortion (Schaeffer, 2000:10). They are a “nonsectarian, nonpartisan, grassroots

organization” that is “dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to

abortion” (Feminists for Life). They have a college outreach program and speakers bureau,

distribute ads and sell merchandise with slogans such as ‘women deserve better than abortion,’

maintain an email announcements list, and publish a quarterly newsletter, The American

Feminist.

Democrats for Life works to, “elect pro-life Democrats to office…support pro-life

Democrats in an elected position…promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform,

achieve pro-life legislation with the help of national and state pro-life Democrats…[and]

participate actively in Democratic Party functions and offices” (Democrats for Life). They have

state chapters in 41 states. They publish legislative updates and position papers on their website.

Democrats for Life hopes to create a political action committee (PAC) in the near future

(Meehan, 2003a:64). The Democratic National Committee has refused to place a link to

Democrats for Life on their website (Meehan, 2003b:6).

The Consistent Life Network is, “committed to the protection of life, which is threatened

in today's world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment and euthanasia…[they]

challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace,

reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected.” They established an Institute for

Integrated Social Analysis to, “increase the quantity and quality of research on matters pertaining

to the consistent life ethic and the connections between issues of violence from abortion and

euthanasia to the death penalty and war” (Consistent Life Network). They also sell a video

Dreistadt 13

featuring several consistent life activists and maintain a library of articles and newsletters on

their website. Though most of their members are Catholic, they claim to be a nonsectarian

organization.

The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL) “strives to promote a respect for

life within the gay community and encourage gay and lesbian participation in the pro-life

cause…[and are] committed to raising awareness of the pro-life ethic as consistent with the gay

and lesbian struggle for human rights.” (PLAGAL). “Formed in 1990, they publish a periodic

(usually quarterly) newsletter and engage in a variety of public events and as sponsors and

speakers. Their website includes a number of brochures about their position.

Feminists for Life

Democrats for Life

Consistent Life Network

PLAGAL

Year founded 1972 1999 1987 1990

Founded by Disgruntled NOW members

Network of state pro-life Democratic groups

Members of (the now defunct) Prolifers for Survival

Tom Sena

Activities Campus outreachAdvertisementsPublishingSpeakers bureauT-shirts, buttons, stickers, etc.

Support pro-life Democratic candidates and elected officialsPromotes pro-life position w/in the Democratic PartyLobbyingState chaptersT-shirts and stickers

Research instituteEducational videoAdvertisementsSpeakers bureauDirect actionAmicus briefs

Direct actionSpeakers bureauMedia outreach

Membership 5000 unknown 200 groups350 individuals

800

Budget $380,000 $55,000 $45,000 <$25,000

IV. Methodology

A list of national progressive pro-life organizations was compiled after reviewing

academic and popular articles and books as well as by conducting an Internet search on Google

using combinations of the search terms abortion, pro-life, progressive, liberal, nontraditional,

unconventional, and feminist and by reviewing the member list of the Consistent Life Network.

Dreistadt 14

A brief survey was also administered through email asking identified organizations to name

similar groups. The organizations identified as progressive and pro-life are: Feminists for Life,

Democrats for Life, the Consistent Life Network, and the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and

Lesbians. These organizations meet the following criteria:

Their underlying beliefs are based on at least one of the arguments described in the

literature review.

Their mission is not based on conservative political beliefs.

They are national in scope.

Their membership is open to all regardless of religious beliefs.

They fill a void created in society by political exclusion from mainstream groups.

Key informants from each of these organizations, who are identified below, will be

contacted via telephone and an interview will be arranged. The identified person may delegate

this responsibility to another staff person, especially in the case of mainstream organizations that

have paid staff. To better understand the relationship between these organizations and

mainstream groups, interviews will also be conducted with conservative pro-life and progressive

pro-choice groups. All interviews will be conducted in person and are expected to take between

15 and 30 minutes. Each interview will be transcribed verbatim. For organizations with more

than one key informant identified, interviews will be one or all individuals depending on

availability. One interview session will be held per organization.

Key informants from progressive pro-life organizations are:

Organization Key Informant AffiliationFeminists for Life Serrin Foster

Sally WinnPresidentVice President

Democrats for Life Kristen DayJanet Robert

Executive DirectorPresident

Consistent Life Network Bill SamuelCarol Crossed

PresidentBoard Member, former

Dreistadt 15

Paul MagnoExecutive Director

Executive DirectorPLAGAL Cecilia Brown

Jackie MalonePresidentExecutive Vice President

Key informants from national non-progressive pro-life organizations

are:

Organization Key Informant AffiliationNational Right to Life Committee

David O’SteenWanda Franz, Ph.D.

Executive DirectorPresident

American Life League Judie BrownJames Sedlak

PresidentProgram Director

Life Dynamics Mark CrutcherTerrance Anderson

Founder and PresidentVice President

Republican National Coalition for Life

Colleen ParroPhyllis Schlafly

Executive DirectorFounder

Republican National Committee

Ken MehlmanJo Ann Davidson

ChairmanCo-Chairman

Key informants from national progressive pro-choice organizations are:

Organization Key Informant AffiliationNational Organization for Women

Kim GandyKaren Johnson

PresidentVice President

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Cecile RichardsEsperanza Garcia Walters

PresidentChairperson

NARAL Pro-Choice America Nancy KeenanMary Jane Gallagher

PresidentChief Operating Officer

Emily’s List Ellen R. MalcolmKaren M. White

PresidentNational Political Director

Democratic National Committee

Howard DeanLottie ShackelfordLinda Chavez-ThompsonRep. Mike HondaSusan TurnbullMark Brewer

ChairmanVice ChairVice ChairVice ChairVice ChairVice Chair

See the appendix for a list of questions that will be asked of each organization.

In addition to interviews, documents from the progressive pro-life organization will be

scanned for specific information about their activities, resource development, member base, and

Dreistadt 16

partnerships. Such documents include pamphlets, newsletters and other publications, fundraising

letters and other correspondence, and websites.

All information that is collected will be coded and organized using ATLAS.ti. Data

will be grouped by type of organization and according to these topics: strategies, tactics, resource

development, resource mobilization, collaboration, and membership. Subtopics will be

developed based on trends found in the specific information that is collected. Each datum will

also be identified by the group it is affiliated with and the group it is referencing. A chart will be

developed that shows connections between progressive pro-life organizations and the

mainstream organizations, connoting the specific nature of the relationship. An historical

timeline will be developed based on the data collected, showing the development of each

progressive pro-life organization in relation to the others. Finally, I will compare and contrast

the activities, collaborative efforts, and level and types of external influence of each progressive

pro-life organization.

V. Expected Results

I anticipate that the pro-life progressive groups will point to the political environment and

dynamics of mainstream groups as the key factor that led to the creation of their organizations.

From their formation through their most recent activities, progressive pro-life groups will report

operating in a hostile political environment that has purposefully excluded them. In response,

progressive pro-life groups have forged a new type of organization that meets the specific needs

of their members and supporters.

I believe the progressive pro-life groups will also explain that they exist because of one

or more of the aforementioned arguments used by progressive and feminist pro-lifers. They will

specify those exact needs that were not being met by mainstream organizations.

Dreistadt 17

I expect to find that many of the strategies and tactics used by progressive pro-life

organizations are planned in reaction to the behavior of mainstream groups. Because the

conservative pro-life and progressive pro-choice groups have more extensive financial and

political support, they are able to shape the public discourse on the abortion issue. Progressive

pro-life organizations will report that an important part of their work is to educate the public

because the information circulated is controlled by larger, mainstream groups. I think the

progressive pro-life groups will also mention that they act in response to legislative and judicial

changes that threaten their beliefs and that their members contribute more time and money when

pro-life values are at risk.

Finally, I expect that many of the mainstream group leaders will have less knowledge of

progressive pro-life organizations than those organizations will have of mainstream groups. The

mainstream groups are less affected by the countermovement groups than vice versa because

they have control of the political and public arenas and are more financially stable.

Dreistadt 18

APPENDIX

Interview Questions

Key informants from progressive pro-life organizations will be asked these open-ended

questions:

1. What does your organization do?

2. How did your organization get started?

3. How is your organization different from (name each progressive pro-life organization)?

4. Have you heard of (name each non-progressive pro-life organization)? Have you had any experience with them? Have you ever collaborated with them? How have they influenced your organization’s activities? Your fundraising strategies? Your volunteer recruitment activities? The composition of your membership base?

5. Have you heard of (name each progressive pro-choice organization)? Have you had any experience with them? Have you ever collaborated with them? How have they influenced your organization’s activities? Your fundraising strategies? Your volunteer recruitment activities? The composition of your membership base?

6. How has your organization been influenced by the Democratic Party? The Republican Party? The feminist movement?

7. Why do you think progressive pro-life organizations like (name of organization being interviewed) exist?

Key informants from the other organizations will be asked these open-ended questions:

1. What does your organization do?

2. Have you heard of (name each progressive pro-life organization)? What do you know about them? Have you had any experience with them? Have you ever collaborated with them and if so, how?

3. Does your organization have a political or financial advantage over (name each progressive pro-life organization)? In what way?

4. Do you think your organization has influenced the activities of progressive pro-life organizations and if so, how? How have your organization influenced their fundraising strategies? Their volunteer recruitment activities? The composition of their membership base?

Dreistadt 19

WORKS CITED

Barnes, Fred. “No Womb for Debate.” The New Republic 207.5 (1992): 36.

Barnes, Fred. “Pro-life Democrats.” The Weekly Standard 1.50 (1996): 15.

Bottcher, Rosemary. “Pro-Abortionists Poison Feminism.” Pro-Life Feminism. Ed. Gail Grenier Sweet. Lewiston, NY: Life Cycle Books. 1985.

Browning, Ali. “The Nature of the Foetus: A Vegetarian Argument against Abortion.” Swimming Against the Tide: Feminist Dissent on the Issue of Abortion. Ed. Angela Kennedy. Dublin, Ire: Open Air, 1997.

Buckley, Kathleen and Monika Rodman.. “Pro-Life Feminism is the Future.” San Francisco Gate 5 Sept. 2005: A-27.

Carlin, Jr., David R. “The Tyranny of the Pro-Choice Snobs.” New York Times. 10 August 1992: A17.

Consistent Life Network. www.consistent-life.org. Accessed 10 Feb. 2006.

Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Ted G. Jelen, and Clyde Wilcox. Between Two Absolutes: Public Opinion and the Politics of Abortion. Boulder: Westview Press, 1992.

de Jong, Daphne. “Feminism and Abortion – The Great Inconsistency.” Pro-Life Feminism. Ed. Gail Grenier Sweet. Lewiston, NY: Life Cycle Books. 1985.

Democratic Party. Strong at Home, Respected in the World: The 2004 Democratic National Platform for America. www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf. 27 July 2004. Accessed 2 May 2006.

Democrats for Life. www.democratsforlife.org. Accessed 10 Feb. 2006.

Estabrook, Carl. “Abortion and the Left.” CounterPunch 17 Jan. 2003. www.counterpunch.org/estabrook01172003.html. Accessed 1 Jan. 2006.

Farmer, Ann. “Socialism and Abortion.” Swimming Against the Tide: Feminist Dissent on the Issue of Abortion. Ed. Angela Kennedy. Dublin, Ire: Open Air, 1997.

Feminists for Life. www.feministsforlife.org. Accessed 10 Feb. 2006.

The Gallup Poll. Abortion Issue Guides One in Five Voters. 26 Oct. 2004.

The Gallup Poll. DNC Members Optimistic About Party’s Future, but Want Change. 11 Feb. 205.

Dreistadt 20

The Gallup Poll. Party Lines Shape Views of What’s Morally Acceptable. 24 May 2005.

General Social Survey, 2004. National Opinion Research Center. www.thearda.org. Accessed 1 Apr. 2006.

Ginsburg, Faye D. Contested Lives: the Abortion Debate in an American Community. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Grenier Sweet, Gail, ed. Pro-Life Feminism. Lewiston, NY: Life Cycle Books. 1985.

Hentoff, Nat. “Pro-choice Bigots: A View from the Pro-Life Left”. The New Republic 207.23 (1993): 21-3.

Jackson, Jesse. “How We Respect Life is the Over-Riding Moral Issue.” Right to Life News. January 1997.

Kennedy, Angela, Ed. Swimming Against the Tide: Feminist Dissent on the Issue of Abortion. Dublin, Ire.: Open Air, 1997.

Kohl, Nina. “Pro-Life Democrats: We’re Here, We’re Sincere. Get Used to It.” Tikkun 20.13 (2005): 14-18. http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0505/document.2005-04-22.8728576767. Accessed 1 Feb. 2006.

Krane Derr, Mary. “A Lost Source of Strength and Power: The Long Feminist Tradition of Nonviolent Response to Crisis Pregnancy.” Swimming Against the Tide: Feminist Dissent on the Issue of Abortion. Ed. Angela Kennedy. Dublin, Ire: Open Air, 1997.

Loesch, Juli. “Our Bodies, Their Lives.” Pro-Life Feminism. Ed. Gail Grenier Sweet. Lewiston, NY: Life Cycle Books. 1985.

Luker, Kristin. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

MacNair, Rachel. Is Abortion Good for Women? Swimming Against the Tide: Feminist Dissent on the Issue of Abortion. Ed. Angela Kennedy. Dublin, Ire: Open Air, 1997.

Mahkorn, Sandra K. “Challenging Alliances.” Pro-Life Feminism. Ed. Gail Grenier Sweet. Lewiston, NY: Life Cycle Books. 1985.

Maxwell, Carol J.C. Pro-Life Activists in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Meehan, Mary. “Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed The Sanctity of Life.” Pro-Life Feminism. Ed. Gail Grenier Sweet. Lewiston, NY: Life Cycle Books. 1985.

Meehan, Mary. “Democrats for Life, Part I.” Human Life Review 29.3 (2003a): 63 – 81.

Dreistadt 21

Meehan, Mary. “Democrats for Life, Part II.” Human Life Review 29.4 (2003b): 5 – 26.

Meyer, David S. and Suzanne Staggenborg. “Movements, Countermovements, and the Structure of Political Opportunity.” The American Journal of Sociology, 101.6 (1996): 1628 – 1660.

Munson, Ziad. 2002. “Becoming an Activist: Believers, Sympathizers, and Mobilization in the American Pro-Life Movement.” Ph. D. Diss., Department of Sociology, Harvard University.

Norton Humphry, Kelly. “The Loneliness of a Prolife Liberal.” America 159.8 (1998): 181.

O’Brien, Brenda. Empty Rhetoric: A Feminist Enquiry into Abortion Advocacy and the ‘Choice’ Ethic. Swimming Against the Tide: Feminist Dissent on the Issue of Abortion. Ed. Angela Kennedy. Dublin, Ire: Open Air, 1997.

Price, Tom. “Pro-Life Democrats Lament Outcast Status.” The Christian Century 109.16 (1992): 476.

Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. www.plagal.org . Accessed 10 Feb. 2006.

Randolph Pearcey, Nancy. “A Plea for Changes in the Workplace.” Pro-Life Feminism. Ed. Gail Grenier Sweet. Lewiston, NY: Life Cycle Books. 1985.

Republican Party. 2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America. http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2006.

Roth, Jennifer. “A Secular Case Against Abortion.” www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html. Accessed 1 Feb. 2006.

Schaeffer, Pamela. “Liberal Activists Oppose Abortion as Part of ‘Seamless’ Package.” National Catholic Reporter 36.12 (2000): 3.

Strickler, Jennifer, and Nicholas L. Danigelis. “Changing Frameworks in Attitudes toward Abortion.” Sociological Forum 17.2 (2002): 187-201.

Trageser, Jim. “The Left’s Surrender on Issues of Human Value.” American Reporter, 13 Jul. 1998. www.trageser.com/archive/essays/essay-surrender.html. Accessed 1 Feb. 2006.

Trageser, Jim. “The Voice of the Liberal, Pro-Feminist Anti-Abortionists is ‘Lost’ in the Debate.” San Diego Union-Tribute 1 April 1992. www.trageser.com/archive/essays/essay-feminist.html. Accessed 1 Feb. 2006.

Voss Koch, Cecilia. “Reflecting As FFL Celebrates Its Tenth Birthday.” Pro-Life Feminism. Ed. Gail Grenier Sweet. Lewiston, NY: Life Cycle Books. 1985.

Dreistadt 22

Wallis, Jim. “Pro-Life Democrats?” Sojourners Magazine. June 2004. http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0406&article=040651. Accessed 1 Feb. 2006.

Dreistadt 23