Talk:Feminists for Life/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Two questions

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)

Criticism?

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)

Let those who have a negative opinion add a criticism section. Though I think it more likely that the ProChoice Police of Wikipedia will notice that there's a positive article about a prolife group and just sumarily nuke it. ChristinaDunigan 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a writer on this page (how is that), and have constantly updated it. I would like to point out that it does not need a critism to be factual. The claim that this article is not neutral is not true. Wikipedia isn't a blog and if you disagree with FFL's mission, or weather or not their really feminists, then write it on a blog, essay, ect . . . the only critism that you can include in an enclopedia is controversy, such as if they are accused of making money of their agenda.

Other pro-life and feminist organizations have critism's because NOW has done things like purge lesbians, and NTRL has had open fights with presidential canidates, FFL has managed to avoid these sort of contraversy. 216.201.7.151

This is not true if your edit history is an indicator. Please get a user name IrnBru001 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To the person that sent me a message, I don't get what your problem is, and I frankly I don't care. I will only say this once, I am not getting into a debate or discussion with anyone over some minor technacality, over the fact that someone wants to argue over something as rediculus as me claiming to have contributed to this page. You may notice that I cannot spell technicality, ridiculous, or whether. Still, please believe me when I say that I am a regular contributor. I am not lying. Honestly.

I only wrote here simply to make a point that this article is neutral, and no reasonable arguement has been presented otherwise. If you don't belive me about contributing, that your problem, however weather or not you believe me has nothing to do with the point I made. So back off.

At any rate my point is simply that this article is neutral, if your sole objection is that there is no critism of the organizations stance, then that is not reasonable claim. If you have an ideological problem with them then write an essay, or a blog, but unless you see where a scandel involving FFL was intentionally left out, please don't tag this.

If you find out something about FFL that could be included as a critism or scandel about the organization, then please include it, otherwise don't complain.

As you yourself have included per your citation of the Katha Politt article from TNR, there is A LOT of ambiguity and controversy surrounding FFL. 1). Per that article, Foster is implicated in saying that rather than simply working towards the elimination of the need for abortion or just overturning Roe vs. Wade mandate for across-the-board legalization, the group works to make abortion ILLEGAL in ALL CASES, including rape, incest, or even "the health of the mother"--and this whether all members agree or not. 2). The vast majority of historians, myself included, find many flaws in the attempts to claim pre-suffrage feminists as direct historical anti-abortion antecedents and, as with Susan B. Anthony, to claim that her supposed moral objections to abortion would be the equivalent today of being "pro-life." Most historians would disagree with this characterization, since the social realities are not comensurate. Likely, relative to the mainstream, she very well might have noted the importance to women's rights of control over their own bodies (since, after all the Revolution articles were penned AGAINST an abortion law) and become pro-choice and most feminists did during the second wave of feminism. I think that someone should insert these ideas; I generally don't like to step on peoples' toes, but if such edits are not forthcoming, I will do it myself. My apologies! Franzibear 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

links?

I think that there might be too much external links on this article. I mean, there is no link between feminists for life and democrats for life, except that both are pro-life organisations, and I don't think we should list every single organization that share opinions on the external links section.

Plans to Reorganize & Rework

With all due respect to the original authors, I'm planning to reorganize this article to include a more accurate organizational description, history of the organization, and outline of the organization's major outreach programs, all with reference to original FFL materials (website, magazine, and other publications). Blackcat73

Why would trademarks be removed? Surely if an organization owns a trademark, there should be some notice? Blackcat73

Description

"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)

Dear JK, I think "non-partisan" means "not affiliated to a party", mostly political party. If we take your definition, the word is utterly meaningless, since there is no group that is not commited to a cause (or several causes). Even a choir is commited to a cause, namely singing songs. For these reasons I will include "non-partisan" for the moment. Also, the "non-sectarian" should be included somehow, albeit in a more NPOV manner. Maybe, "religiously and politically unafiliated"? As a matter of fact, I will put in this and see what others have to say on that. Str1977 10:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Recent Revert

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)

Too long, tone needs work, heavy on quotes, rewrite

This article is very florid in its wording. I think this article focuses too much on what FFL members say about the organization, rather than just describing the organization objectively. I would like to see the article pared down to a manageable size.

Also, I think the tone is congratulatory towards the organization; it's not as encyclopedic as it could be. I would like to work on the tone so it doesn't sound so much like an informational booklet that members of the organization wrote.

Another problem I see is that this article relies very heavily on quotes made by FFL members to describe not only FFL, but to present their views seamlessly without objective input. I'm adding the rewrite template. Any help would be appreciated. Joie de Vivre 15:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone, the article is just fine.

If you want to add a critism section and some quotes from Planned Parenthood, ect . . . fine but don't mess up this article simply because you don't like it. Furthermore it is not too long and it does not need a re-write.

Don't fix what is not broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.201.33.10 (talk • contribs) 19:20, February 18, 2007 (UTC).

Well, I already stated what I think is broken about the article. It's long, it repeats itself, it wanders topically. It uses FFL's website heavily as a source, it doesn't mention any public criticism, it's not objective in its tone. Saying "it's not broken, it's fine" isn't very helpful. And it isn't very nice to tell others not to edit Wikipedia. Please consider registering a username or at least signing your comments with four tildes ~~~~ in the future, it improves communication between editors. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First off I have already stated I don't intend to register, so don't ask again, and secondly I don't care weather you think its not nice to tell someone not to edit or not. So far you haven't provided any substantiated reason for doing so, and I don't think its nice of you to say an article that other people worked on needs to be re-worked for no reason.

As I have stated before on this page there is nothing wrong with it. It does not wander and repeat itself, it gives information and it has a long history, there are countless other pages on wikipedia that are far longer than this one, including the Anarchism, ect . . . furthermore length should never be an issue, the point of wikipedia is to provide extensive information, if you see something overly repeating itself then correct it, but length is no excuse for re-wroking a page.

Furthermore so what if it uses FFL's official website as its source? There's nothing wrong with that given the fact that it is the official website unless they are providing false information which can be established. When it comes down to it, it is extremely helpful to use their organization's website as it is the official information, and it would be rediculus (not to mention legally precarious) to use another source unless it could be verified. Are you saying that there is something on there website that is un-true? If so what? IF not then why are you complaining? There website is just as valid as any other source, at any rate the only reason to attack a source is if it is providing un-true information or is invalid, there website is neither as far as I know.

Furthermore to include infomation or a souce that directly contradicts there official website or makes claims that are un-true without any proof could be considered libel.

And as for a critism section as has been stated above, if you want to include a critism section go ahead, but no one has done so so far because there isn't a lot to criticize. They haven't had any scandels (as far as I know) and the only critism that can be argued is that they take a differant perspective on things. However technically speaking that would be a critism of pro-life feminism and should be included in the pro-life feminist page, not the Feminists for Life organization page.

As for the tone I don't think its overtly biased, show an example of were it is overtly biased.

And again as I originally said if you want to include critism section, such as the fact that Planned Parenthood has placed them on their top ten list of anti-choice organizations, go ahead and include a relevant critism section that supplies the views of its detractors, but don't wine and demand a re-write based on un-substantiated complaints.

POV Changes

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)

The new incarnation of this page is the most pathetic pro-choice POV attack on wikipedia. Whoever made the changes should be suspended and the old page should be reverted. - dissident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.255.40.133 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 May 2007.

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)

Thank-you Neitherday. If you have read the talk page I have tried to hash it out with people but so far no one seems to have added any concrete specific complaints about what was wrong with it, or added the critism section that they say is needed.

To be honest I don't think there are any real problems with the article except that it is not negative and is about a pro-life organization. I keep hearing how there are all these problems with it, but nobody wants to say what or how, or even provide examples of how it is POV. Everyone keeps calling for a critism section but nobody wants to put it in. The fact is that I personally can not think of any major critism's that could be included, except for the fact that some people think that pro-life feminism is an oxymoron, however that belongs on the pro-life feminist page not the Feminists for Life page.

Please not I have added the statement Susan B. Anthony would have supported abortion out of the Susan B. Anthony House section because it doesn't belong, the section is about the house, feminists for life's interpretation of Susan B. Anthony's legacy, and it goes against everything we know about Susan B. Anthony's views on the issue.

Thank you again for restoring the article. - dissident.

Original research, cleanup

This article relies heavily on descriptions of Feminists For Life provided by members of the group. There is little that stands in the way of their assertions about historical figures such as Susan B. Anthony; the claim that she was anti-abortion is devoid of context; as abortion was a life-threatening undertaking during her lifetime. The conditions under which abortion were performed in the 1800s are nothing like the antiseptic conditions under which they are performed in developed countries in the present day. (Lack of access to proper medical services in poorer countries is not the point.) This is just one example; this article also repeats itself many times (the newsletter is described in detail twice, descriptions of their programs/activites are also repeated). This article reads like a position paper or stump piece, and it's badly organized at that. Joie de Vivre 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As to your first complaint there is no rule that says members can not contribute, furthermore unless you can show that something is untrue then stop complaining and whining. The fact is that your complaints focus exclusively on who is saying what instead of what is being said. Is there something untrue or misconstrued in the article, and if so what?

Secondly your interpretation of Susan B. Anthony's views is highly skewed, and based exclusively on your own assumptions. I have read virtually every published work in which SBA mentions abortion, (her own quote was used in this article) and can say positively that she NEVER referred to it as "a dangerous medical procedure," and ALWAYS as "child murder." Whats more in one work she states that women that have abortions have committed a crime, and calls the crime child murder.

Just because you can not handle SBA's stance on abortion don't go trying to misconstrue it. What's more SBA's newspaper The Revolution always treated abortion when mentioned as "child murder," "infanticide," "ante-natural murder," take your pick.

At any rate if something overly rambles fix it, if you want to include a criticism section of the organization (not pro-life feminism that belongs on the pro-life feminist page) then include one, otherwise quote vandalzing the page, and making rediculus complaints. 216.255.40.133 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Joie de Vivre--if you would like a free .pdf copy of the book ProLife Feminism Yesterday and Today (Second Expanded Edition), which reprints many primary source documents and thoroughly establishes the context of early as well as present-day feminist views,I would be glad to email you one, just let me know where it should be sent. The early feminist view seems to be a big controversy throughout Wikipedia; perhaps it would help the editors to learn more about how and why prolife feminists (and actually some prochoice) understand & interpret it as they do. The book also references and discusses a bit about critics and skeptics of prolife feminists' understanding/interpretation of the history.It could probably help in achieving a more balanced/POV-free article here, & possibly elsewhere in Wikipedia.--MaryKDerr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marykderr (talk • contribs) 18:18, June 7, 2007 (UTC).

(PS I am *not* the user who is personally attacking you here, ad hominem attacks just make my heart sink, I'm trying to suggest something towards a solution veryone, well, most of us, can live with.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marykderr (talk • contribs) 22:31, June 7, 2007 (UTC).

Don't worry, MaryKDerr, I didn't think that was you. Joie de Vivre 02:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To 216.255.40.133; just to refresh on a few things you said to me:

"stop complaining and whining"

"Just because you can not handle [something]..."(sic)

"quote vandalzing the page, and making rediculus complaints" (sic) -- I think you meant "quit vandalizing" and "ridiculous".

I don't think that whether I can handle myself is the issue. Instead of responding to my neutrally stated concerns about the content of the article; you spewed several paragraphs of personally-directed vitriol. I suggest that in the future you exercise greater control.

Did you honestly believe that what you said could be part of a productive discussion? Joie de Vivre 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What I honestly believe is that the greatest obstacle of a productive discussion are your constant and un-founded complaints. And thank-you for the refresh but there was no need as I know perfectly well what I said. Here's a refresh on what your said and a commentary;

1. Feminists for Life members contribute to this page.

Rebuttal 1. There is no rule saying they can't furthermore the issue is not WHO but WHAT is being edited to this page. I have time and time again asked you to provide an example of any information on this page that is either un-true or overtly POV, ect . . . you have time and time again failed to do so, and I can only conclude it is because you can't, therefore any complaints on this subject constitute "complaining and whining."

2. Susan B. Anthony was not pro-life really ect . . .

Rebuttal 2. I have told you before that she was, and the reasons why I say that, furthermore this page about the Susan B. Anthony house includes a sourced quote from Susan B. Anthony herself. ALL of Susan B. Anthony's writings on abortion refer to it as "child murder," and she calls it a crime committed by the mother, but states women are often driven by men to commit these crimes. You keep refusing to acknowledge this simple fact based on no contrary facts. So far your arguements have been based on assumptions on this point, my arguements have been based exclusively on SBA's writings. Therefoe I must conclude that you can not handle the truth.

The only concerns you list that are valid is that info on the newsletter repeat itself, if that is the case then feel free to change it, you don't even need to discuss that sort of a change as it is obviously a typo.

At any rate if this article is badly formatted, or repeats itself then you don't even need to discuss fixing it, only inform people what your changing as far as formatting and editing out information that has already been stated. If you wan't to add a criticism section go ahead, but it has to be a criticism of the organization, not of pro-life feminism. A criticism of pro-life feminism belongs on the pro-life feminism page.

At any rate as far as I can see the majority of your complaints are un-founded and seem to be highly POV.216.255.40.133 00:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and, most importantly, WP:NPA. I would like to discuss the article with you but that is impossible when you continue to make personal attacks against me. Please stop. Joie de Vivre 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, your "arguments" above are based on things I did not say. I did not say that FFL members were "contributing to the page" or that if they did it would be problematic. I said that this article relies too heavily on descriptions provided by FFL members; i.e., from their organization's documents and literature. Secondly, I did not say that Susan B. Anthony was not really pro-life. I said that the descriptions of her arguments lack context, meaning historical context of the social, economic, and health-related consequences of pregnancy and motherhood, and of abortion, in the time in which she lived. Yours are what can be described as straw man arguments. To "set up a straw-man argument" is to misrepresent an opponent's position in a way that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

I strongly suggest that you cultivate a more neutral internal state, as it may help you to interpret my statements as I meant them, rather than as you prefer to see them. Joie de Vivre 01:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not making personal attacks, I am making logical deductions and classifying what I see your behavior as, in this case rediculus.

You complain that it relies to heavily on members descriptions. So what? Is there something that is either untrue, unfounded, or overtly POV? If so what? If not once again why are you bringing it up? The fact remains that so far I can not understand what your problem is on this point. You don't cite any examples of something being untrue, unfounded, or overtly POV. The fact is that unless you can show something to that extent your complaints are completely irrelevant.

As far as SBA's views go you are once again off base. Why should the article include information about abortion having been a dangerous medical procedure (most of them were in the 1800's) when that had NOTHING to with SBA's views? You keep wanting to add all this stuff to SBA that had NOTHING to do with her views. The quote included in the article is even from SBA, is that evidence of bias on this page too?

The fact is that abortion was a life risking procedure then, so what? That was not why SBA opposed (I have actually read what she has to say on the matter, have you?) so what point is there including it in the article? The fact is that there isn't a point to it.

At any rate the only person who seems to have a POV here is you, and now that I have seen your attempts to also delete the pro-life feminism page, which caused another editor to come to blows with you I can only assume that you in fact do have an agenda.

If you want to prove me wrong stop making unspecified rediculus claims (if there is something in the article that is untrue, unfounded, or POV show me and we can correct it) and stop trying to misrepresent history (especially when I can prove you wrong). 216.255.40.133 04:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Joie de Vivre 04:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Joie I am not making personal attacks, I am however done playing with you, and putting up with your vandalism. You have made no valid complaints, and you have attempted to include your own slant on historical fact, you have also slandered me by claiming I have attacked you, I haven't. This conversation is over. If you continue to vandalise the Feminists for Life page I will ask that you be banned from editing wikipedia. 216.255.40.133 04:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: There are a number of issues here. First, 216.255.40.133, you really should check WP:CIVIL. Also, comments such as "Therefoe I must conclude that you can not handle the truth" do come close to violating WP:NPA. Second, there is a guideline that applies to members of the organization editing this article: WP:COI. This doesn't mean such a person cannot edit the article, just that they must take extra care to adhere to WP:NPOV. Third, the comment "unless you can show that something is untrue then stop complaining and whining" is completely incorrect; Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth. If inclusion of a statement is disputed, it is up to the party that wants to include it to supply a reliable source. Regarding the POV accusations from both sides, it appears to me that 216.255.40.133 has a major pro-POV, while Joie de Vivre has a bit of an anti-POV but is trying to respect WP:NPOV. As for Susan B. Anthony, however, if the quote is not improperly taken out of context (context of the source, not the historical context) then it only needs an actual citation such as that provided as reference number 13. There is no need for a mention of the medical dangers or religious upbringing that may have influenced her viewpoint, unless a reliable source is provided that credibly claims that quote mischaracterizes her actual views.

To continue forward, I suggest dropping the Susan B. Anthony issue unless there are legitimate claims that the quote is out-of-context or reliable sources supporting consideration of historical context. Instead, focus your energies on cleaning up the article and determining just what in the article is unsourced, POV, or OR. Anomie 14:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Anomie. I think your observations and suggestions are sound. I hope that they will help us arrive at consensus. Joie de Vivre 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anomie thank-you for your comments, but I do not have a POV problem. If I am coming close to making personal attacks it is only because I have had to go round and round and round with this same person again and again, and am not getting anywhere.

MY problem is that A. Joie makes a complaint about the article. You say it doesn't have to be true just verifiable, yet Joie has not shown something that is not verifiable either, or POV. ALL I want on this point is IF something is wrong for Joie to show a specific paragraph, or sentence that Joie has a problem with and show that it is either POV or un-verifiable, ect . . . I have asked Joie for SPECIFICS many times before and Joie has failed to do so. All Joie does is make a generalized complaint, and then demand the article be axed. That is no way to edit an article. I am willing to listen to specific complaints where an example is shown such as with a sentence or a paragraph, and then talk about it. But Joie is not doing that. Generalizations are of no help, and that is all has done. That is not an attack, it is a complaint of my own.

If you make generalised complaint you also have to provide evidence of that complaint, Joie has not done so despite constant requests.

Whats more I am not the only one who has had problems with Joie on this issue. The last time Joie and I argued over this page I came back only to find that most of the article was deleted, I was not the only one that noticed as another editor came along and restored the entire article as it was. Whats more Joie has also attempted to delete or merge the Pro-Life Feminism page on the grounds that there was no actual movement (despite the fact the page deals primarily with the ideology) causing problems with another editor.

The fact is that this is not a simple personality conflict. Others have had similar problems with Joie. I am more then willing to work with Joie on real problems on this page because I agree it may have some. But I am not willing to axe this page, delete most of it, and I am not interested in generalizations. I want some specifics such as a sentence or a paragraph ect . . . that violates wiki standards, otherwise there really is nothing to discuss. Joie has made some accusations about this article I would like some evidence, that is neither POV nor unreasonable.

If Joie provides specifics such as a sentence or paragraph I am more then willing to talk to Joie about that, but until Joie does that there is nothing left to discuss. 216.255.40.133 16:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have absolutely no POV on the abortion question - no, really, - but I do have a point of view on this article: it sucks. It suffers from major neutrality issues. 90 percent of the referencing is to either this organisation's website or their newsletter. We are supposed to reference things to reliable independent sources. The sourcing here doesn't even come close. In addition, the article reads like it's trying to sell me something, like an advert for this group. There's way too much of "They say this" and "They do that", and not nearly enough of "People have said this about them". In fact, I don't think there's any of "People have said this about them". If there's none of this, how are we meant to judge whether they're even notable or not? I've no doubt they are, but at the moment you just can't tell.

So, a couple problems: inadequate referencing, general neutrality problems, and a severe problem with undue weight, in addition to the problem that none of what others have said about them is included in the article in the slightest. Maybe 80 percent of this is eligible for axing. Moreschi ^Talk 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You bring up three issues:

I agree that references could be improved, and "citation needed" cleanup tags should be added where references in most need of being added or improved.

The main POV issue I see is the new section called "press" which is a list of cherry picked anti-ffl articles.

WP:WEIGHT warns against minority views taking too much space on major topic articles (such as abortion or feminism), however it goes on to state "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.".

I completely disagree with the idea of a massive deletion of content in this article. Neitherday 18:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What you call "cherry-picked anti-FFL" articles are in fact the only articles from major press sources that I could find (plus the two best-written non-major-newspaper sources I could find). If you find more, feel free to add them. This was my attempt to bring some third-party, non-FFL sources into the article as a start, since there were almost none. Joie de Vivre 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah nah, that's not what I meant. The whole article is a POV issue (the "History" section is least guilty in this regard"). It reads like an advert for this organisation. It provides a heavily biased description of their many wonderful activities and plentiful support without any sort of criticism or counterbalancing views. That's what I meant by undue weight. The whole article is just not neutral. It does not even try to present a balanced picture.

It's not just that the refs need to be "improved". Some more need to be added, sure, but the ones we have now are problematic enough. You just can't reference an article on an organization entirely from that group's website and newsletter. You'll invariably get a biased and skewed picture. Like referencing Communism entirely from Das Kapital (is that a variant of Godwin's Law? If so, apologies, but I think the comparison is vaguely valid). The problem is not that more references are needed, is that the one's there now are the wrong kind. That's what's leading to the POV problems. Moreschi ^Talk 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is exactly what I meant by what I said at the very top of this section. The whole thing is self-referenced. Joie de Vivre 20:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please show a specific instance of what you mean so that we can discuss correcting it. And also as I have said to others, if you want to include a criticism section feel free to do so, but it has to be criticism of the organization, not the ideology. Criticism of Pro-life feminism belongs on the pro-life feminism page. 216.201.33.24 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with your last clause. I think I've given specific enough examples - check the references section for what I mean about biased references, that is clearly not acceptable - but here are some specifics.

Susan B. Anthony is as much a symbol to pro-life feminists today as she was to suffragettes a hundred years ago. In addition to women's suffrage, Anthony was a vocal opponent of abortion considering it a form of oppression and exploitation of women. This quote was printed in her newspaper, The Revolution: "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!" Feminists for Life will not own the Susan B. Anthony birthplace, but will maintain the property, concurrently developing a plan to perpetuate the legacy of Susan B. Anthony.[16] 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.

Now, statements like the very first sentence are way out of line: unreferenced, not neutral, and of dubious relevance, as is the whole second paragraph, which reads like blatant promotion of the "Aren't we wonderful, looking after this historic site type". This is probably the worst single bit, but 80 percent of the article is along similar lines, and the bits about New Zealand have me wondering if anyone cares (about the New Zealand quasi-branch, is that really encyclopedic?). Moreschi ^Talk 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps the pro-rewrite people should copy the article to Talk:Feminists for Life/rewrite and mercilessly rewrite the article, with discussion in a new section here. If the anons have anything constructive to contribute (no reverts!) they should feel free to cooperate and otherwise should just remain silent. Everyone involved in the rewrite should keep WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF firmly in mind, follow WP:1RR, and remember that WP:NPOV says that the article shouldn't be pro-your-viewpoint any more than it should be pro-someone-else's. Sources critical of the movement as a whole should be carefully examined for relevance to this facet of it, but should not be banned out of hand. Anomie 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to give it a go - everyone, please feel free to join in at Talk:Feminists for Life/rewrite - but it just occurred to me that reverting to an earlier version might solve the problems. This revision is comfortably better than what's there now, and is far less dubiously referenced, and is more neutral. I'm not sure we need to rewrite, just revert. Moreschi ^Talk 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That was my original hack'n'slash version. I created it as a skeleton to build on using verifiable third-party resources. I had already tried for hours to get the original to some semblance of NPOV, but I could not do it. Feel free to use it over at /rewrite. Joie de Vivre 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To Moreschi, I wrote the paragraph that you have complained about. I can understand how it could be seen as POV. To be perfectly honest I wasn't thinking about that, I was thinking in the early 1900's SBA was a hero to the suffragettes who called the 19th Amendment the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, and how Feminists for Life puts SBA and her quotes on billboards, t-shirts, ect . . . today.

I was trying to explain the history there and since Feminists for Life will maintain the SBA house its most likely they will emphasize this point. I also included a quote from SBA to try and avoid POV problems as I thought it would be best to let SBA speak for herself.

The fact is many pro-life feminists do consider her a hero to them, as did the suffragettes. What do you suggest that we say instead?216.201.33.24 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As nobody has bothered to give a reply, or make any further discussion to my last comment despite the passage of two days, I am asking that the tags be removed and that this issue not be brought up again, especially since nobody seems to be willing to make relevant, specific complaints, or when they do are not willing to stick around long enough to actually hash them out to fix the alleged problem. 216.201.33.24 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of response:

1. Two days isn't very long, particularly on the weekend.
2. I can't speak for anyone else, but after the way you spoke to me, I didn't really feel like responding to you.
3. It's not that I'm not willing to discuss. It's that I'm not willing to discuss amid insults. If those stay gone, discussion can happen.

Regarding article content:

1. We would say "SBA is considered a hero by pro-life feminists because of x y and z."
2. Beyond the SBA content, there are still major POV problems. The tone of the article is very congratulatory towards FFL, which is not neutral. Most of the descriptions are provided directly by FFL literature, and rather than neutral descriptions. Quotes from Serrin Foster and FFL dominate the descriptions of the group, its mission, and its activities. Example: "Then, FFL designed an ad series for a college audience, which challenged traditional abortion views and provided practical information for pregnant women". Who is to say the information is practical? POV. "Feminists for Life's recent work has involved advocating laws protecting pregnant women from being coerced into an abortion, ..." Who is to say the laws are "protecting" them? Which laws are we talking about?

These are just examples of a problem that is present throughout the article, not meant to be debate items.

—Joie de Vivre 10:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to "The fact is many pro-life feminists do consider her a hero to them, as did the suffragettes. What do you suggest that we say instead?": You either find quotes from reliable sources indicating that, or you don't say anything. Nandesuka 11:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried creating a version that was reliably sourced, it was referred to as "vandalism" because so much of the (unsourced, POV) content was removed. Joie de Vivre 11:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nandesuka, what is your problem with SBA? Are you complaining that it is un-sourced? And what is unreliable about the sources provided, and I DO NOT want to hear anymore whining from anyone about the fact that their webiste is a source. The article section is about the SBA house, and there was a news item mirrored on their website, that is completely NPOV, unless you can show otherwise.

Now if you are saying that it is an un-sourced statement I will try and find evidence to back up those statements that can be unincluded in the section.

But to clarify, the section is about the Susan B. Anthony House, which is owned by a Feminists for Life member, and will be operated by the organization. This needs to be kept in perspective.216.201.33.24 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not refer to what others are saying as "whining". It is uncivil and inappropriate. Joie de Vivre 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Joie it is perfectly appropriate and civil, now do you have something to contribute that is useful to the article or are you going to continue complaining about the fact that other editors on here are out of patience with your antics? I assure you I am running out of patience with you, if you want me to be civil then cut the victim act and contribute and I will be nicer to you.

Nandesuka here are some sources for statement that you may or may not quote and include,

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html http://www.euthanasia.com/anthony.html http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/SBABirthplacePurchased.htm http://members.tripod.com/~danewe/ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200001/ai_n8881605 http://cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a062.html http://www.feministsforlife.org/who/aboutus.htm (Feminists for Life main page mission description featuring SBA image and quote) http://www.sba-list.org/aboutSBA.aspx?page=4abt http://www.feministsforlife.org/img/cop/ads_PDF/03SBAFanatic.pdf (From what I understand this image has been plastered on billboards)

I believe this is sufficient sourcing, as well as evidence to support my assertion that many pro-life feminists today rally around Susan B. Anthony especially since there is even a political action committe founded by a former Feminists for Life leader called the Susan B. Anthony List dedicated to ellecting pro-life women to congress. 216.201.33.24 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To all future editors of this webpage please fallow the fallowing protocals to avoid any further conflicts and confusion during discussion.

1. If something repeats itself, ect . . . assume it is a typo and correct it, then simply post what you corrected and why. If certain parts of this article repeat themselves it is NOT a conspiracy.

2. If you believe anything in this article is POV, copy and paste specific sentences and paragraphs to the talk page, along with your reasons so that the issue can be discussed.

3. Do not complain about the use of an organizations website as sourcing. As one editor has pointed out it only needs to be verifiable. If the statement is verified by the organizations website, and there is no dispute of the information, then there is no problem.

The claim this is POV ignores the fact that there is no dispute concerning the information only the source of it. This is not POV, but rather reflects a failure by the media, and other organizations to comment on Feminists for Life. This is not the fault of Feminists for Life, or any other pro-life feminists, and this page should not be deleted or mutiliated simply because other people have not bothered to write anything about Feminists for Life.

If other people have written about Feminists for Life and provide a source then feel free to include them.

4. If you want to include a critism section feel free to do so, and then simply post a notice of it. However any critism section MUST be relevant to the article. That means that it must be a criticism of the organization itself. Criticism of pro-life feminism belong on the pro-life feminism wiki page.

5. Do not make sweeping generalized complaints, without evidence, that leave editors no choice except deleting the entire page, or deleting most of it. By making specific complaints about specific paragraphs and sentences you will save everyone a great deal of grief.

If you fallow the above suggestions you will save us all a great deal of grief and hassle, so that we will be able to get down to any problems this page has and resolve them.

Thank-you. 216.201.33.24 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New Section

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)

Also as nobody who complained concerning this page bothered to stick around to discuss changes, and the base of the complaints were for the most part unspecified generalizations which could not be resolved without deleting the article, or ninety percent of it, I must conclude that the editor that accused this page of POV were in fact attempting to vandalise this page as this is the second time she has provoked a fight demanding this page be deleted, but failed to stick around to discuss specific changes once it was made clear this would not happen, and has also attempted to do the same thing to the pro-life feminism page.

If any other editors have any complaints about this article as contributor if I am around I would be more then glad to discuss your complaints provided that they fallow my above suggested guidelines for making complaints.

Please do not waste your time (or mine) making absurd complaints insisting that this article, or most of it, be deleted (it won't). And as I have said time and time again if you want to include a criticism section (of the organization) feel free to include one. 216.255.11.188 07:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If this issue is discussed again "Nah nah, that's not what I meant. The whole article is a POV issue (the "History" section is least guilty in this regard"). It reads like an advert for this organisation. It provides a heavily biased description of their many wonderful activities and plentiful support without any sort of criticism or counterbalancing views. That's what I meant by undue weight. The whole article is just not neutral. It does not even try to present a balanced picture, I would like to state I wrote some of the history section, and the reason this articles history section is somewhat one sided is because virtually everyone else, including NOW have not (at least publicly) made any statement.

This article needs a history section, and so far pro-life feminists are the only ones writing it, most mainstream, and other feminists organizations stance is either ignore the existence of the organization, or to attack the ideology.

If ANYONE can find any non-pro-life feminist published papers on Feminists for Life history, paticularly concerning the 1970's you will have found a rare item, so PLEASE post it here so that it can be included. 216.255.11.188 07:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

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) 20:18, 2 August 2007.

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)

I agree. I changed the title and deleted the advertising paragraphs --Bremskraft 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

The paragraph she was mentioned in was completely an advertisement. --Bremskraft 22:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

March for Life

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)

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)

Fact Tags

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)

Copy and paste error. Sorry. --Bremskraft 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

2-3 Copy and paste errors fixed--Bremskraft 22:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"2-3"? There was a whole lot more than that. Neitherday 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing excessive advertising

The paragraphs labeled, "Women Deserve Better Campaign" and "Feminists for Life International" are excessively long and blatant advertising. I propose shortening them. --Bremskraft 21:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not proposing, you are simply doing. This statement is nothing more than an edit summery posted to the talk page. Again, a lot of what you are removing is not "advertising" and using the word does not give you free reign to delete huge chunks of this article. Sometime tonight I'm going to readd a lot of the text that is being wrongfully removed. Neitherday 22:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please give reasons as to why you add them back. I would like to learn why so I can become a better editor.--Bremskraft 22:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you an example, but you simply deleted too much text without good explanation to detail each. If you are deleting large chunks of longstanding text, it is your responsibility to explain your edits and gain consensus. Restoring the text however is simply returning to the previous consensus.

The example and explanation you asked for:

You deleted the following text from the Women Deserve Better Campaign section with the claim "advertising":

The "Women Deserve Better" and the "Refuse to Choose" slogans reflected what they saw is integrated aspects of their philosophy. Foster explained: "We refuse to choose between women and children. We refuse to choose between sacrificing our education and career plans or sacrificing our children."ref:http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/Some%20Feminists%20Not%20Marching.htm "Some Feminists Won't Participate in 'March for Women's Lives'"

The major legislative goal of Feminists for Life's "Women Deserve Better" campaign has been the passage of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act by Congress. The Elizabeth Cady Stanton Act was first 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. ref:http://www.feministsforlife.org/ECS/index.htm Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act

This text explains the campaign and its goals in a largely NPOV way. And even if you were to have a POV problem with the text, that does not make it "advertising". Simply discussing an organizations goals, slogans, and practices is not in itself POV, POV would be stating overtly that those goals, slogans, or practices are either desirable or undesirable. Neitherday 22:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a more neutral way to present this information (rather than regurgitating slogans) would be this:

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. 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.

I'll add that in right now. --Bremskraft 23:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that text. Lets work together in fixing and/or readding and/or discarding the other text. We can make this article better together! But, now I must eat dinner. Neitherday 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New Consensus Needed

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)

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)

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.

"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."

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.

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." 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. Therefore, FFL is opposed to euthanasia, infanticide, and child abuse. FFL does not take an official stance on contraception.

Feminists for Life also seeks the traditional feminist goal of 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."

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."

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. 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.

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. 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.

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."

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. 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.

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. 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..."

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...

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.

One quote by Mattie Brinkerhoff 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."

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)

These are fabulous edits. They are really well thought out and done well.--RebelAcademics 03:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

If you're reading my writing, you might want to note that I am pro-choice. Neitherday 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting. Might I ask the manner in which this was "brought to [your] attention"? Neitherday 05:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it turns out you were a sock puppet after all. [1]. Neitherday 14:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert tag

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)

Start again

Okay, let's do start this process. The section, "Organization" is excessively long, repetitive and as one user put it, "descriptions of Feminists For Life [seems to be] provided by members of the group." Weather it is true or not that the FFL is editing this page and Nietherday is a member of FFL along with the unattributed IPs, the article none-the-less reads as if it were written by the FFL. This is how another person has proposed to break up the the "Organization" section, make it more neutral, and in the process, make it more acceptable. If there are not serious objections, I will do this after 24 hours has elapsed for you to review this:

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."

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)

--Ladeda76 20:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

: I support these changes. The article as it stands currently is absolutely unencyclopedic in tone. Nandesuka 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) You again imply I'm affiliated with FFL, when MY writings outside of Wikipedia that YOU linked to makes it clear that I am pro-choice.

2) This is not the text "someone else proposed", it is the text you have proposed under the alias Bremskraft.

3) Again, you left out huge important swaths of the section in your axing, for instance you've completely removed any mention of Sisterlife.

4) It's gracious of you to wait until your ban is up before you start hacking the article again. Neitherday 22:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

To Nandesuka, I agree the article needs work, however the recent deceptive behaviour and disruptive editing on several articles of Ladeda76/Bremskraft/RebelAcademic has made it difficult to work with the Bremskraft. The history of Bremskraft's is littered with deleted complaints about their editing. I am willing to work with you, Nandesuka, on improving the text of this article and not simply hacking it to pieces. It definitely needs some good editing and there is some text that should be removed (though not nearly as much as Bremskraft proposes). I assumed good faith with Bremskraft for some time, but it will be more difficult to take their edits at face value after this mess. Neitherday 22:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

First, as I have explained several times, I am not Bremskraft. And though we can discuss these issues in real life, she is perfectly able to speak for herself on Wikipedia. Please see her talkpage and my talk page. Second, it is interesting that you continue to resist any changes to the FFL page. If you have a problem with a specific edit, politely suggest an alternative rather than rejecting all attempts to make this page better. Otherwise, you are not being neutral. Third, I did not for a second time imply that you are with FFL. What I said that regardless of your affiliation or non-affiliation, you are protecting text that makes it appear that you and others are affiliated with FFL. It is my understanding that this is not a desirable attribute on Wikipedia. --Ladeda76 23:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) How can it appear to you I'm a member of FFL when by the links you yourself provided you know I'm pro-choice?

2) Bremskraft's talk page history is a more telling read than their talk page -- it shows a long history of deleting concerns of their disruptive editing.

3) Note that I did give a specific problem above and now below, that you've cut out many important details like the "sisterlife" newsletter by reckless hacking the text. Look at the history of the Feminists for life article and you can see that I did attempted to work with Bremskraft in good faith in the beginning, until the wholesale deletions of text under the banner "advertising" simply became to rapid to reasonable keep up with.

4) I agreed with Nandesuka and offered to help edit in a reasonable manner and I agree with Benjiboi on the manner in which it should be done. Let's get to work. Neitherday 23:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)