The tragedy of abortion absolutism and how the pro-life movement can respond

Demonstrators who support legal abortion gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court during the 46th annual March for Life Jan. 18 in Washington. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz) 

The stark reality of abortion entered public consciousness this week to a degree not seen in years. Americans were just beginning to understand how radical New York’s Reproductive Health Act, passed on Jan. 22, really was. At the same time, a Virginia state delegate acknowledged, during a legislative hearing, that the bill she had proposed to loosen regulation of late-term abortions would in fact allow abortion up until the moment of delivery. The governor of Virginia, himself a pediatric neurosurgeon, addressed the same issue on a radio show. He explained that it was more likely that such a case, involving a baby with severe deformities or who was expected to be nonviable, would result in a delivery but that the child would only be resuscitated if the mother and family desired. His clinical discussion of choosing to allow an infant to die shocked many. And while it did not attract as much attention, the governor of Rhode Island vowed to sign a similar bill in her state.

As we pointed out earlier this month, with Roe v. Wade under potential threat at the Supreme Court, pro-choice activists are pushing to have its effects codified into state law—and sometimes trying to expand access to abortion at the same time. This challenge calls for careful discernment from the pro-life movement. The fact that some consciences are being woken to recognize the tragedy of abortion is an opportunity for pro-lifers to broaden the circle of those who are willing to support pregnant women and be concerned for unborn children.

Advertisement

Here are three ways to engage this challenge constructively:

First, take great care to be clear, accurate and fair in describing the bad effects of these laws. They are shocking enough without any exaggeration. Also, veterans of pro-life work are not surprised that the controversies over these laws are already being described in terms of “attacks” on the politicians arguing for them. While there is no easy way to achieve fair media coverage of the moral concerns about abortion, it is still important to do what is possible to avoid the most predictable media bias. Some commentators immediately equated the Virginia governor’s remarks to “infanticide,” which the governor described as a bad-faith interpretation—and that allowed the news cycle to turn to parsing the criticism of the governor rather than keeping the focus on the moral question.

Second, be proactive about acknowledging and engaging the best possible motives behind even these very bad laws and resist the temptation to demonize those who support them. Many pro-choice advocates point out—accurately—that the late-term abortions to which these laws expand access are rare and usually connected to tragic diagnoses of fetal abnormality, maternal risk or the expectation that a child will die shortly after birth. Instead of relying solely on blunt, accurate descriptions of the violence of late-term abortions, pro-lifers should give even more emphasis to compassionate care for both mother and child in these terrible circumstances. Options such as perinatal hospice, which provides support and care for the mother, infant and family in situations where a child is expected to die before or shortly after birth, should be much better known. Efforts need to be made to guarantee that they are presented as part of the standard of care and resourced well enough to be available wherever needed. Too often, silence about these possibilities leads to the false choice between late-term abortion and “forcing” a mother to give birth.

Third, legislative efforts to defeat and reverse these laws should be paired with opportunities to reach across the aisle and work for reforms that will help expectant parents and make it easier for them to choose to bring their children into the world. This is not a retreat from the effort to protect unborn children in law—it is a recognition that pro-lifers should be willing to use every practical means to support and defend the dignity of life. If legal limits on abortion are connected to increases in support for parental leave and protections against pregnancy discrimination, they can potentially attract a much wider base of support. Such an approach is not only a chance for real policy improvements, but also a potential opening to win minds and hearts to recognize the value of every human life at all stages of development.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Crystal Watson
2 months 2 weeks ago

This is happening because pro-life Republican legislators made every effort to both overturn Roe and to chip away at existing rights to the point where the decision in Roe was defeated in some states for some people. Combine this with Republican policies that hurt the poor and women. Republicans and pro-life people have been trying to force a minority religious policy on a country that mostly doesn't share that perspective - now Democrats have to try to reverse that trend.

Nora Bolcon
2 months 2 weeks ago

Exactly, Pro-lifer groups wanted to attack Roe v wade and make the right a matter for states to decide and they are seeing what that result is so stop complaining.

karen oconnell
2 months 2 weeks ago

the 'goal ' of so called 'pro-lifer' was never that of '''leaving the issue up to the states. they wanted the ammendment in place and mandatory for all states. if the abortion piece is ever amended, it will probably go to the states. forget about the amendment. it is the law of the land. use $$$ and influence to help singles and families who feel that abortion ''is their only solution.'' (that won't be as much 'fun.!!!'' no marches etc. just lots and lots of love and charity to those facing a tough time.

Nora Bolcon
2 months 2 weeks ago

I agree with you Karen,

If we spent half the funds on helping women and couples with problematic unexpected pregnancies instead of trying to criminalize abortion, there would have been so many less abortions. However, you are correct, it is much easier to hold a sign with the Knights of Columbus all male review marching behind you and funding your cause with insurance money persecuting women and condemning them. This while making sure you do nothing to support actually helping women with what matters. God forbid these pro-lifers spend a dime of taxes to actually help parents raise the unborn children they claim to love so much! Most of these trigger laws leave no help for women other than they will help the women find families for their unaffordable children they obviously can't afford to raise after being forced to give birth to them. These laws are what is an abomination, in my opinion but no one seems to be criticizing them in "America Magazine"or within our church hierarchy.

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

Nora-let's be honest about it. More men favour abortion than women, and I think we all know why. There are plenty of us, plenty who believe in respect for all life, womb to tomb; we believe the solution is to change hearts, by doing the right thing and helping our neighbour, by providing greater aid to ALL people in distress, whether that be a refugee, a migrant or a pregnant woman. We don't vote republican, or support Trump, but as I'm sure you can imagine, the democrats are no longer a party we can supporter either. I just don't think that fits the narrative though, so the divisions continue. God help us.

Nora Bolcon
2 months 2 weeks ago

Unfortunately, independent candidates do not win elections. I don't love everything the Dems do but they do stand for justice and the middle class and poor. The Republicans pretend to care about Jesus and conservative values but all they ever really back is misogyny, racism, ethnic hatred and pure greed. The last one being their most important priority. I vote Democrat because they are always the lesser of two evils in what has always been a two party country.

To make a real difference we need to get rid of the electoral college. Perhaps then people will start believing more that every vote matters and maybe then independent candidates would have chance.

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

Nora- to make a real difference we need to DO. Grouping people into republican, racist, misogynist and greedy is a cop out. Saying you choose the party who cares for the middle class and poor is simply not backed by statistics, particularly when you look at cities that have had democrats in power for decades. This isn't the Kennedy era, and they shouldn't be given a free pass for what they were.

While I do not think picketing is the most effective way to bring change, I most certainly would never judge those who are dedicating their time and effort to try to save a life, and many have. Just think if we all were so committed. It is shameful that we attack those who at least try. It's so easy to say what should be done, while staying on the sidelines.

True feminism respects women and everything about us, including the beautiful gift of bearing children. WE should demand an end to the pressure that is put on women where they feel they have no choice. That is NOT a choice, and it is not in women's best interest. Please give the misogynist, racist labels a rest. I'm pretty sure those types slither their way throughout society, some just hide it a bit better.

Crystal Watson
2 months 2 weeks ago

We can't help but make a distinction between Republicans and Democrats - it is the Democratic party that stands for women's rights, while the Republicans support a president who cheats on his wife and grabs women by the pu**y. And "true" feminism isn't about glorifying women and their ability to have children, it's about treating men and women as equals.

Valerie Finnigan
2 months 2 weeks ago

Ahem. Democrats also supported a guy who had multiple complaints of sexual harassment, assault, and even rape against him. The Dems seem to only support women's rights as long as it's politically expedient.

Valerie Finnigan
2 months 2 weeks ago

Ahem. Democrats also supported a guy who had multiple complaints of sexual harassment, assault, and even rape against him. The Dems seem to only support women's rights as long as it's politically expedient.

Crystal Watson
2 months 2 weeks ago

The difference is that voters knew about Trump's misogyny before the election and voted for him anyway. We didn't know about Clinton until he was already in office.

John Sharpe
2 months 2 weeks ago

....Bill Clinton did it in every political office he held (the blue dress is in the Smithsonian) and Hillary Clinton harassed and sued every woman that came forward....#metoo suckers

Judith Jordan
2 months 2 weeks ago

Thank God for Obama and the Clintons so people have someone to blame for everything. Truth is irrelevant and people blithely spread false witness against them because they do not bother to research the facts.

Who and how did Hillary harass any women? Specifically, who did Hillary sue and in what jurisdiction? What did she claim in her suits? Who won the suits? If you cannot give proof of these issues then your claims are meaningless. You will not be able to answer these things because they are non-existent. Besides, think about it---it would have been an irrational move for Hillary to do these things as it would only bring more focus on the issue.

John Sharpe
2 months 2 weeks ago

don’t be afraid to look outside your bubble ...
https://tinyurl.com/y7bupu2o

Judith Jordan
2 months 2 weeks ago

John Sharpe---

I live outside a bubble, that is why I can point out the following to you.

First, you have not answered my questions about your claim that Hillary sued these women and she harassed them. I assume you have no proof of it and merely repeated what Hillary haters say. The article you posted is just a list of accusations with no proof.

Second, I am surprised you do not check your sources for credibility. Dick Morris has made a cottage industry out of condemning the Clintons, without presenting evidence. His past relationship with the Clintons is the only thing he has to sell even though that relationship has not existed for over 20 years.
Morris is weirdly obsessed about them and has been condemned by liberals and conservatives as a charlatan and self-promoter.

His career collapsed years ago and now he works for the bottom feeder, The National Enquirer. This is a publication, along with its sister paper, The Star, Morris formerly condemned as yellow journalism.

For all of Morris’ condemnations of Clinton sexual infidelities, Morris was outed for having a longtime relationship with a prostitute. His wife stood by him. Something they both have criticized Hillary for doing. Hypocrisy, thy name is Dick Morris.

John Sharpe
2 months 2 weeks ago

Dick Morris worked for the Clintons, you did not. You can try to discredit him with ad hominem attacks, but you cant dispute his facts. We live in an era of the pot calling the kettle black. My fake news is more credible than your fake news. Maybe you should check your sources at Buzzfeed or Huffpost, the msm does and you eat it up. Im not a big fan of Dick Morris but neither do I say his statements are totally false and without merit. If you believe Hillary is blameless than I’m sure you believe Covington boys attacked a Native American elder and the Jussie Smollett was attacked by MAGA wearing white supremacist. Hillary supporters are the worst at disseminating fake news and the Church is not without its players. https://youtu.be/UQcCIzjz9_s

Judith Jordan
2 months 2 weeks ago

John Sharpe---

Again, you have not answered my questions about your claim that Hillary sued these women and she harassed them. I would say that anyone who claims that, but cannot prove it, is the guilty party in spreading fake news.

It is true that Morris worked for the Clintons, but I have not. So what? How would anyone ever write about history since they were not there? Being a witness is a good point, but it does not necessarily mean that is the complete story. Michael Cohen worked as Trump’s lawyer for years. Does that mean you believe Cohen?

How is my recitation of what Morris has done an ad hominin attack? That kind of attack is an attempt to avoid the issue. I did not do that. Specifically, what did I say about Morris that is not true?

I do not believe that Hillary is a fiend. After almost 30 years and millions of taxpayers’ dollars spent by Republicans trying to convict the Clintons of something…anything… it is reasonable to believe the Republicans have lied and slandered them. I am not claiming the Clintons do not have their faults, but they are not the demons the right-wing preaches. After the Republican committees investigated Hillary over and over and over, they still could not produce anything for which she could be prosecuted.

For years, way before most of us ever heard of Trump, I read many articles about him. I was curious as to why I had never heard of him and then suddenly he was in the news. This is how I learned about his business “methods” and that he could not even get a loan in an American bank. That is why he banks with a German bank, Deutsche Bank AG.

I do not believe Trump because it is so easy to prove his falsehoods…without the press. Frequently, he says things I know are wrong from history or other issues I have read about that have nothing to do with him. Notice I said falsehoods and did not say lies. That is because a lie is a false statement made with a deliberate intent to deceive. Just listening to Trump, it is obvious he has little knowledge of history, government, or the Constitution. It might just be that he doesn’t know that what he is saying is false. Tonight I watched Trump’s State of the Union speech and it had many falsehoods. One does not need to read “fake news” or any news to know that.

“Fake new.” I read Trump’s tweets and I listen to what he says. I have read copious amounts about Trump. Yet, my readings have never made Trump look as bad as he does himself.

I have no opinion about the Covington boys or Jussie Smollett because I have not researched them. I hope your fact free assumptions about me are not the way you approach other issues to ascertain the truth of them

I do not read or watch Buzzfeed or Huffpost or Fox. I have long been fascinated with history and government and I read them from both sides. How could anyone determine the validity of anything without doing that? Too many people merely parrot what they hear without checking it out. It is perplexing that people detest Hillary, but embrace Trump. Would they not have to condemn them both?

The nuns “religiously” taught us that not only must we seek the truth, we must not have a “willful disregard” for the truth. We all have an obligation to research the issues and ascertain what is true, even if it disappoints us or does not support our views.

Nora Bolcon
2 months 1 week ago

Well said. That any Trump supporter would criticize anyone else and call them liars is ludicrous to the point hilarious.

Nora Bolcon
2 months 1 week ago

Well said. That any Trump supporter would criticize anyone else and call them liars is ludicrous to the point hilarious.

Nora Bolcon
2 months 2 weeks ago

Correct!

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

Crystal-equality is about treating men and women as equals, true feminism is about embracing and celebrating our differences, challenging our talents and not kowtowing to anyone. Hilary Clinton may have been your representative for feminism, but certainly not mine.

J Jones
2 months 2 weeks ago

Lisa, this is not honest. Feminism is a movement focused on the rights of women based on the equality of the sexes.

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

J Brookbank- fair enough :)

J Jones
2 months 2 weeks ago

Grateful you saw my comment. Meaninful communication is impossible if basic dictionary definitions are thrown out the window.

Crystal Watson
2 months 2 weeks ago

Well, you're not talking about actual feminism. You are describing JPII's idea, "conplementarianism". It's pushed by conservative Catholics as the "new" feminism, but it's the opposite of feminism.

John Sharpe
2 months 2 weeks ago

The only men who want to buy into the institution of marriage anymore are gay.

What feminist don’t get is what they’re calling male privileges men were calling responsibilities and obligations. Men are starting to question what’s in it for me? Ever notice there are a lot of young men today that refuse to leave their adolescent life behind? They’re not that interested or anxious to take on the responsibilities of having a family, especially now that they have to listen to ungrateful feminist. There are plenty of young men out that will be more than happy to reverse their social roles with women.

But the bottom line is there is no proof that any such societies structured like that have ever existed, let alone flourished, otherwise there would already be one.

We hear that same argument with socialism and communism, marxists societies that always end in disastrous failures. The popular argument today is because real Marxism has never been tried..,lol

Judith Jordan
2 months 2 weeks ago

John Sharpe—

You just demonstrated that you do not have any understanding of what feminism is. Your posting is misinformed by relying upon those who deliberately distort and misrepresent feminism.

If we are to believe that most men think what you claim, then it is best that they don’t get married.
Women will be grateful.

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

It has always puzzled me that some women decide they speak for all women, and define feminism from their perspective only. The sad reality is, the feminism you seem to speak of and support, has been pushed by women who grew up in dysfunction, often had an absent or alcoholic or domineering father and /or a passive or mentally unstable mother as their example, and thus became determined not to have to rely on anyone. Ironically, many have done just that, seemingly unable to live without a man. Their goals are genuine but they have no clue what is ideal. Fortunately for some of us, we grew up with parents who loved and respected each other, complimented each other, and were one in union with the other. A husband and father who was mentally strong and supportive and a wife and mother who was the same, just doing different things. Unfortunately for Simone Beauvoir, Margaret Sanger, Gloria Steinem and Germain Greer and many others, no such examples of equality were witnessed. Sorry, but their views on equality and feminism are certainly not mine.

Crystal Watson
2 months 2 weeks ago

This makes no sense.

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

Crystal Watson- How so? Have you read their biographies?

Crystal Watson
2 months 2 weeks ago

!) feminism is not dependent on the work of those few women you mention. It's a huge and complex movement, championed not just by women but men too.
2) are you a psychologist/psychiatrist? The idea that bad childhoods turn women into feminists is just silly.

J Jones
2 months 2 weeks ago

Lisa, with no disrespect intended, I sincerely believe you do not understand the definition of the term "feminism". (Lisa, please forgive me for the earlier version of this comment in which I mistyped 'no respect intended' instead of 'no disrespect intended'.")

Crystal Watson
2 months 2 weeks ago

Here. let a man explain what feminism is, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. He does a good job of it ... https://youtu.be/BHacFI8K6ck

John Sharpe
2 months 2 weeks ago

If your feminist views do not align with Catholic teaching then they’re heretical and you are not a Catholic

Crystal Watson
2 months 2 weeks ago

That's BS. Plenty of Catholics dissent, including people from the past like John Courtney Murray and John Henry Newman.

John Sharpe
2 months 2 weeks ago

Liberals distorting Newman’s writings for their pro abortion agenda...good one!

Nora Bolcon
2 months 1 week ago

Crystal Thank you! Ahh! Truth and reason, like a breath of fresh air.

Nora Bolcon
2 months 1 week ago

Thank you! Ahh! Truth and reason, like a breath of fresh air.

Nora Bolcon
2 months 1 week ago

Thank you! Ahh! Truth and reason, like a breath of fresh air.

Bev Ceccanti
2 months 1 week ago

Crystal: I've never seen anything among the volumes of heretical stuff you've espoused on this website for the weeks I've been been reading to indicate you're a Catholic other then your claim of it. You scandalize the Church and repetitiously cite various stats to try and persuade your horrific positions are popular among Catholics, as though this shows consistency with God's revelation as preserved by the Catholic Church. Your penchant for using statistics to show 'acceptance' by the Church is a dead giveaway. The Catholic Church is not a democracy . Many Catholics are likely in hell or on their way. I know some protestant denominations seem to believe that once you accept 'Jesus Christ as your Savior', you are saved no matter what. The Catholic church absolutely doesn't teach that. ( It teaches Salvation can be rejected by anyone, including priests, bishops,etc.): but you continually try to bolster your arguments by trying to prove that many Catholics believe as you do. This type of argument may have a basis among Protestants but never in the Catholic Church. The evidence, of your own making, indicates a shameful misrepresentation. Regardless of your 'claim', a practicing Catholic can easily discern you have rejected the Church if you ever were Catholic in the first place.

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

Crystal Watson- Sorry Crystal, as a Canadian, believe me when I say many of us do not consider PM Trudeau an advocate for women. Interestingly, he too has a background of inappropriate behaviour with at least one woman. When, by the way is it ok for men to speak about women's rights? Only when they support the feminist cause that you define? Not the men who support women like myself who do not see abortion as a women's right issue? Those men have no right to speak?

As mentioned earlier, I agree with you that feminism is a movement that seeks equality between the sexes. The difference between your views and mine, however, is I don't believe in sacrificing my female uniqueness in the name of equality. That is NOT equality. Nor is taking the life of an unborn child in the name of equality.

The reason I mentioned the background of some of the leading feminists, is it speaks to their inability to embrace the differences between men and women, because their experience has been one of oppression. That doesn't make the male-female relationship unequal, it makes certain men and women unwilling/unable to accept it. Naturally, it follows that those who have not been treated properly will fight for change.

For the record, I am NOT a conservative. I'm not a liberal, I am Catholic as far as my beliefs, which means, in general, conservative on moral issues, liberal on social issues. I believe Catholic teaching respects the dignity of the individual and promotes the unity of mankind.

J Jones
2 months 2 weeks ago

Lisa, I sincerely believe you are mixing apples and oranges. It is simply NOT a feminist argument that no differences exist between and women. Difference and equality are not in conflict unless society's structure (its laws, institutions, policies, etc) assigns rights and privileges unequally based on gender. It really is that simple.

All this other stuff? Fine, good, go for it. Those are distinct issues.

Feminism is a movement working to ensure equal rights for women based on the equality of the sexes. That's all.

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

J - I agree 100% that difference and equality are not in conflict unless imposed by laws, etc. So explain to me please how abortion falls into the category of women's rights? How is it one person's right over another in the name of equality? How is it equality when we are 'offering' women in their most vulnerable time the 'option' to end a life so that theirs may continue like before? Does it not bother you that so many are pressured into this? Is that equality? That's feminism to fight for?

J Jones
2 months 2 weeks ago

Lisa, a couple thoughts:

1) I recognize that you believe that "many" women abort pregnancies because they are "pressured" by individuals in their lives. That is a very vague statement; it is certainly ominous; and I have not seen any evidence other than anecdotes that this is a serious factor in 2019. (In fact, the only time I heard about this last year was when text messages were published and forensically identified as belonging to a married anti-abortion conservative Republican congressman from PA who pressured his married mistress to abort a pregnancy which resulted when he had intercourse with her.) Can you point me to non-anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon?

2) As you know, many feminists do not support abortion rights. I think you are a feminist who doesn't support abortion rights. I am a feminist who believes women have the right to bodily integrity and the right to make healthcare decisions in the privacy of their medical provider's office and in the context of the reality of their individual lives. I believe both complex positions ---- yours and mine ---- are compatible with feminism.

3) I believe your question with the words "offering", "options", "so their lives can continue as before", etc, is so loaded with assumptions and jargon that it cannot produce a meaningful response.

3)

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

J- I can attest to the absolute fear, I remember it well, even 35 years later. Thankfully I had very supportive parents, but the fact is, when in crisis, you have no idea what to expect. I have two friends who had a different reaction when they broke the news to their families. One was dragged to a clinic, the other was told to have an abortion or leave the home. We all were from financially secure Catholic families. My children know several girls who were too afraid to tell their parents, or whose parent and/or boyfriend put pressure on them. The reality is, many, women feel pressured, and others are too afraid to tell their families. This, absolutely must stop. This is not free choice this is a coerced decision for far too many young women.
https://www.pop.org/many-american-women-felt-pressured-abortions-study-finds/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/
http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionkeyissues/whywomenabort/Default.htm
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38775641

J Jones
2 months 2 weeks ago

Lisa, I will read the articles. Thanks. I agree with you 100% that pregnant women and girls should not be directed, pressured or otherwise controlled by others.

Nora Bolcon
2 months 1 week ago

It is sad what happened to these women and girls but this only justifies the stand that abortion needs to be solely up to the pregnant women, not their families, or parents, or the politicians who are mostly men, or you who are not directly involved in every womens story. You want us to treat all pregnant women like they are children or mentally disabled. Women are human adults and when they are pregnant they will have to carry most of the burden of the pregnancy which directly affects their health, career and emotional well being which is why it is only fair that they get to choose to gestate their pregnancies t birth and not be forced to use their bodies and organs to gestate their pregnancies against their will. We do not even make people give blood to save their own child's life after they are born. We do not force all dead people to be organ donors to save others lives, including new born babies so how then is your stand just on principal alone? Not to mention harsh laws against abortion always increase its occurrence in every country of the world and that has already been well evidenced.

Crystal Watson
2 months 2 weeks ago

Lisa -
Men can be feminists and speak on the issue, just as they can have an opinion on abortion.
It seems you have chosen to adopt the church's views on feminism. That's fine, but that definition has nothing to do with actual feminism as the greater world understands it. And I don't understand why you feel the need to project psychological problems on those who disagree with you. This is what makes it really impossible to argue with many religious people ... there are no shared facts.

Lisa M
2 months 2 weeks ago

Crystal- I never came close to suggesting that those who disagreed with my interpretation of feminism have psychological problems. I said that many of the leading feminists grew up in dysfunction, and therefore desired change, but did not know what an ideal male/female relationship was. They had only to imagine. That goes for all of us, who have not experienced something we want to experience, we imagine and then attempt to achieve it. Plenty of people in similar circumstances move on to make great relationships, others not so much. But, if I were to seek advise from someone, say about marriage, I would ask someone who has succeeded and is happy, rather than someone whose marriage either failed or has brought pain or bitterness. That is just logical to me. When we are hurt by something, our guard is up, and we try to protect ourself. That is a natural response.

J Jones
2 months 2 weeks ago

Lisa, I agree with almost everything you say here. I just don't understand how it is particularly relevant to feminism. The feminist works of the women you mentioned are NOT focused on helping women and men have successful marriages. Their works are focused on eliminating structural barriers to women's equality and rights. There are points of intersection, of course, but feminism never intended to be a recipe for healthy, happy marriages. You do you, as they say. Meanwhile,z feminism will remain focused on equal rights for women based on the equality of women.

Advertisement

The latest from america

Join Kirsten Powers, CNN analyst and USA Today columnist, and Rev. James Martin, S.J., Editor at Large of America Media and New York Times best-selling author, for a live show celebrating the 100th episode of Jesuitical.
America Media EventsApril 24, 2019
“The Sacking of Rome” (Karl Bryullov/public domain via Wikimedia)
The fire at Notre Dame raised questions about God’s protection of sacred sites. But then how could God allow the destruction of Rome just one generation after Christianity became the official religion of the Empire?
Stuart SquiresApril 22, 2019
Sri Lankan Army soldiers secure the area around St. Anthony's Shrine after a blast in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Sunday, April 21, 2019. Witnesses are reporting two explosions have hit two churches in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, causing casualties among worshippers. (AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena)
Since the end of the nation's 26-year civil war, in which the Tamil Tigers, a rebel group from the ethnic Tamil minority, sought independence from ethnic Sinhala Buddhist majority Sri Lanka, the country has seen sporadic ethnic and religious violence, but the scale of Sunday's bloodshed recalled
Most converts I know have an elevator speech on why they became Catholic. My Catholicism just sort of “happened.”
Reilly CosgroveApril 21, 2019