Mary Rose Somarriba

Is nature sexist?: radical feminists’ fierce war against fertility

Mary Rose Somarriba
By Mary Rose Somarriba

April 30, 2012 ( - As the administration’s healthcare plan is weighed by the American public and the Supreme Court, the debate over the contraceptive mandate continues with high intensity. And for no small reason. Contraception is the only medicine we’ve heard so loudly proclaimed by the government to be completely free of charge. There are many other drugs for diabetes and cancer and heart conditions that are not free to patients and yet are much more necessary for survival and disease prevention. So, why is the administration pushing for contraceptives to be free and not graver health necessities?

For supporters of the recent HHS mandate that forces religious institutions to buy insurance that makes these items free to their employees and students, the cause served is “reproductive justice.” It was as past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice that Sandra Fluke testified to Congress—as a victim of injustice who, along with her female peers at Georgetown, suffers from not having contraception paid for her in full.

But what is “reproductive justice”? To help answer that question, perhaps we should first ask: Who is guilty of the injustice? For Fluke, it’s her school that “creates untenable burdens that impede our academic success.” But of course it’s unfair to say that an institution, by not covering the cost of some product, implicitly creates burdens for its female students. My employer, by not covering my preferred allergy medicine, doesn’t create my burden of allergies. My allergy problems are internal to myself. They are, so to speak, natural problems I live with, ones I cannot label as someone else’s fault. Unless I were futilely to blame, say, God or nature.

But I would argue that underneath it all, advocates of “reproductive justice” do blame nature. Nature is the true obstacle to these women’s idea of justice.

Fluke might not put it this way, but radical feminists who cling to terms like “reproductive justice” and “reproductive freedom” are really trying to beat the cards that nature dealt them. They want sexual license outside the scope of what nature provides as the healthiest course—sex with one person for a lifetime. They object to the reality that sex can naturally lead to babies, creating burdens that research shows they’d be best suited to bear with the help of a husband. Underneath sexual liberationists’ wish to overthrow patriarchal traditions of marriage and religious institutions’ principles of sexual ethics, there seems to be a wish to overthrow the most stubborn foundation of all—nature herself.

This thinking was impossible to miss as I read the recent book by staunch activist for reproductive rights Merle Hoffman, Intimate Wars: The Life and Times of the Woman Who Brought Abortion from the Back Alley to the Boardroom. A rambling memoir of her personal life that spares none of the inglorious parts—having an affair with her much-older boss, marrying him and then abandoning him in the last years of his life, hiring doctors with bad records to perform abortions at her clinic, being sued for Medicare fraud—the book reveals Hoffman to be less the mind behind the abortion movement and more an accidental money-maker from it in the New York metropolitan area.

Hoffman is not your average abortion supporter. For one thing, she recognizes abortion as ending the life of another human being. She also recognizes the unconstitutionality of “the right to choose”: “the U.S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy, so the foundational legal pillar of [abortion] is vulnerable.”

It’s refreshing to see someone on the pro-abortion side speak so candidly about the issue. But, if one recognizes abortion as the ending of a life, and concedes that its legality is not protected in the Constitution, then where lies the defense?

One shouldn’t strain too hard to find logic in Hoffman’s memoir. What the book doesn’t offer in a coherent thesis, it does reveal in an underlying theme that discloses the reasoning of those who champion reproductive freedom.

Hoffman started her career working as a receptionist in a medical office, began an affair with the doctor who ran it, and followed his career path to help him start an abortion clinic in New York. Soon, Hoffman was running an abortion clinic herself. With every abortion patient she welcomed, Hoffman grew more and more committed to helping women find reproductive freedom.

After decades of abortion activism in New York, at age 66 she writes that even if abortion ends a life, it is defensible in the pursuit of “true reproductive freedom” for women. As Hoffman puts it, “the anti-choice movement claimed that if women knew what abortion really was, if only the providers had told them the truth, they would never have killed their babies. . . . But women did know the truth, just as I knew it, deep down, when I allowed myself to recognize it. Mothers saw the sonogram pictures, knew that sound bites assuring them that abortion was no different from any other benign outpatient surgery were false—knew that, as the antis say, ‘abortion stops a beating heart.’” Even still, she continues, they were making a “decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart.”

Click ‘like’ if you are PRO-LIFE!

Having witnessed these hearts being stopped for years now, Hoffman admits, “I wasn’t immune to the physicality of abortion . . . but I quickly came to realize that those who deliver abortion services have not only the power to give women control over their bodies and lives but also the power—and the responsibility—of taking life in order to do that.” She continues, “acknowledgment of that truth is the foundation for all the political and personal work necessary to maintain women’s reproductive freedom.”

Unlike other freedoms, reproductive freedom has no basis in nature and no mention in the Constitution; it is not considered a God-given freedom, so to speak. Instead, terms like reproductive freedom are manufactured ideas—ideas that represent what some people want to strive for. Ideas that nevertheless, for women like Hoffman, are worth protecting in law.

Hoffman writes, “the comparative history of abortion is actually the history of power relations between states and their female populations. . . . The battlefields are different, but the war is always the same. . . . True reproductive freedom for women is never under consideration.”

So, getting back to our original question: What is “true reproductive freedom”? If it means absolute sexual license without consequences such as pregnancy and children, then it has the unfortunate attribute of never before existing in history. It’s not a freedom that women have ever fully exercised; it isn’t one that was possessed by women at some time but was taken from them and thus needs to be safeguarded from violators.

Nevertheless, terms like “reproductive freedom” and “reproductive justice” are the rallying cries of such advocates. For Hoffman and her comrades, unwanted pregnancy is an unjust imposition on women who are sexually active. Technology such as contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization have nearly evened the scales of reproductive justice—even if not completely; as long as women have had to pay for these things, they’re still being treated unjustly.

It’s this fringe-feminist thinking that can explain the reasoning behind HHS mandating free contraceptive and abortifacient coverage. But according to this logic, it would be equally unjust for women to pay $300-$500 out of pocket for an abortion. Men don’t have to go through the trouble of getting abortions or bear the financial, physical, and emotional burdens. In a sense, the millions of dollars Hoffman has made from women’s abortions are a testament to her cashing in on what her own logic would call a grave injustice to women.

In her defense, Hoffman would cling to her favorite prop to carry at abortion rallies—the wire hanger, which for her symbolized the purpose of the movement. Hoffman’s solace in her work came knowing that if doctors weren’t performing abortions or prescribing the morning-after pill, women would be taking health risks in pursuing illegal abortions. The “back-alley abortion” argument—another impressive instance of logic—relies on women implying that if they aren’t granted legal ability to end their child’s life in the womb, they’ll hold themselves hostage and threaten both lives if not appeased.

But it’s fair to say this self-destructive turn in logic hasn’t really helped today’s radical feminists. Pitting women against nature, it is running into the ground a movement that started rightly in the name of peaceful ideals. Once they justified mothers ending the lives of their children, they created an unsustainable pillar for the movement—as evidenced by abortion remaining an unsettled issue in America nearly forty years after its legality.

Hoffman describes her own abortion saying, “Now I was joined to the common experience of my sex.” But abortion has never been the common experience of women. For all of history and for most of the world, it’s childbirth—that essential part of womanhood that keeps humanity going. Hoffman never treated herself to the experience of motherhood, until at age 58 she decided to adopt a girl in Russia. But not all women have that luxury. Hers is not quite a picture of reproductive justice.

It’s tragic, really. The fight against nature is a hard and constant fight. In Intimate Wars, Hoffman’s decades-long odyssey fighting the battles for reproductive freedom brings to mind the words of the Greek tragic dramatist Aeschylus: “In war, truth is the first casualty.”

Mary Rose Somarriba is chief operating officer of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., and managing editor of Altcatholicah. This article first appeared at and is reprinted with permission.

Share this article

Featured Image
Lianne Laurence


Jennifer Lawrence slams Christians: Kim Davis supporters use crucifixes like ‘pitchforks’

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s no surprise that yet another Hollywood star is mouthing the usual liberal platitudes, but the fact that this time around it’s Jennifer Lawrence, a mega-star and lead in blockbuster series Hunger Games, brings a particular sting of disappointment.

That’s because the 25-year-old, effervescent and immensely talented star often comes across not only as very likable, but also as someone capable of independent thought.

But apparently not.

Or at least not when it comes to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk famously thrown in jail for refusing to obey a judge’s order that she sign marriage licenses for homosexual couples.

Davis, Lawrence tells Vogue in its November issue, is that “lady who makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky.”

“Don’t even say her name in this house,” the actress told Vogue writer Jonathan van Meter in an interview that happened to take place the day after Davis was released from her five-day stint in jail.

Lawrence then went on a “rant” about “all those people holding their crucifixes, which may as well be pitchforks, thinking they’re fighting the good fight.”

RELATED STORY: Wrong, Jennifer Lawrence! Real men don’t need porn, and women don’t need to give it to them

She was brought up Republican, she told van Meter, “but I just can’t imagine supporting a party that doesn’t support women’s basic rights. It’s 2015 and gay people can get married and we think that we’ve come so far, so, yay! But have we? I don’t want to stay quiet about that stuff.”

After conjuring up images of Christians as bug-eyed hillbillies on a witchhunt with her reference to “crucifixes as pitchforks,” Lawrence added darkly: “I grew up in Kentucky. I know how they are.”

Perhaps one should infer that it’s lucky for Lawrence she escaped to Los Angeles and its enlightened culture. That hallowed place where, according to van Meter, Kris Jenner (former spouse of Bruce Jenner, who infamously declared himself a woman) brought Lawrence a cake for her birthday that was shaped like excrement and inscribed: “Happy birthday, you piece of sh*t!”

Lawrence is reportedly now Hollywood’s most highly paid actress. Not only is she the star of the hugely popular and lucrative Hunger Games franchise -- the last installment of which, Mockingjay, Part 2 opened November 20 -- but she won an Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook and starred in several others since her breakout role in the 2010 moving and moody indie film, Winter’s Bone.

Lawrence has every right to express her opinion, although no doubt it will be given more weight than it deserves. It is unfortunate, however, that she’s chosen to wield her fame, shall we say, as a pitchfork against Christian moral truths.


Featured Image
Antonia Tully, leader of the Safe at School initiative
Voice of the Family

, , ,

Romania holding the line against anti-family sex education

Voice of the Family

November 25, 2015 (VoiceoftheFamily) -- The battle to defend children from harmful forms of sex education was dealt a damaging blow by the 94% of cardinals and bishops attending the Ordinary Synod of the Family who voted in favour of paragraph 58 of the final report of the synod, which undermines the rights of parents as primary educators of their children.

Antonia Tully, leader of the Safe at School initiative, a project of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, was invited to Romania this month by the Metropolitan Orthodox Church of Moldova and Bukovina and pro-life groups to speak about the impact on children of graphic sex education. Here is her encouraging report about parents’ resistance in Romania which she concludes with the words: “If mandatory sex education is stopped at the Romanian border it will deal a much needed blow to the global campaign to sexualise and defile the innocent hearts and minds of the world’s children.”

The global drive to make school sex education mandatory for the world’s children is finding strong and organised resistance in Romania, where the issue currently hangs in the balance. The country’s Minister for Health favours pro-abortion/LGBT style sex education while the Minister for Education would like to see Romanian children taught the family values promoted by the pro-life lobby.

The good news is that introducing graphic sex education into Romanian schools will not be a pushover. Having recently returned from a week-long visit to Romania at the invitation of the Metropolitan See of Moldova and Bucovina, I saw parents and the Orthodox church standing shoulder to shoulder determined to protect their children from damaging sex education. The bad news is that the sex education lobby has been given access to the political and civic infrastructure to promote its position and materials.

In 2013, over 2,000 public libraries in Romania became the channel for distributing a graphic sex education programme; “Sex v the Stork”. This online resource was written by a Romanian, Adriana Radu, following a year she spent in Germany working with a pro-abortion organisation. Roundly condemned by pro-family groups, “Sex v the Stork” was launched in the Romanian parliament on national “Day of the Library”, and made available to any child visiting a library via the internet, avoiding control by parents or schools.

Speaking to packed meetings in five different towns and cities mainly in the north east of Romania, I invited people to look across Europe to Britain. Teaching children as young as five and six years old about their sexual organs, followed by detailed animated presentations of sexual intercourse are fairly standard elements of British classroom sex education. In Britain we are being told that children have a “right” to this education, indeed they “need” it in order to avoid pregnancy and to stay safe from sexual abuse. Nothing was lost in translation when I informed parents, teachers, doctors and priests that there is no evidence that teaching young children about sex protects them from premature pregnancy or sexual abuse. My take home message is: Parents you are the first and best educators of your children. You are the best people to protect your children.

In October 2015, 60 pro-abortion organisations petitioned the ministries of health and education to impose sex education on the country’s schools. This was accompanied by typically vulgar demonstrations outside the respective ministries, with young people brandishing condoms, underwear and bearing placards with slogans such as “My vagina- my choice”.

82 pro-life groups responded with a joint statement firmly rebuffing the claims of their opponents. Drawing on their recent past, they pointed out that the first political system to significantly separate children from their parents was Communism. They said: “It is not difficult to identify in the proposed approach for sex education an essentially Communist principle: children do not belong to parents they belong to the state”. This sinister aspect of secular, state-sponsored sex education is perhaps not so keenly felt in many countries. But it is in Romania, where Christian families suffered so greatly under Communist rule.

Based in the lovely university city of Iasi (pronounced ‘yash’), I covered several hundred miles by car travelling around this beautiful country. But it is a country haunted by people who are not there. For every Romanian alive today (approximately 18 million live in Romania, with a further 2 million living abroad), there is one who has been lost to abortion. 20 million unborn babies have been killed by abortion in Romania from 1970 to the present day.

However, I am very hopeful for Romania. During my recent visit I heard a number of priests publicly pledge the support of the church to defeat sex education in schools. The Archbishop of the Diocese of Buzau and Vrancea spoke at the meeting I addressed in the city of Buzau, again positioning the church with ordinary parents in their initiatives to protect their children.

In 2011 the Orthodox archbishopric of Iasi, established the first dedicated, diocesan pro-life department in Romania. The department offers care and support for women in crisis pregnancies, it runs a social project for large families and has produced an accredited pro-life, pro-family teaching resource for schools in Iasi. Archbishop Teofan is clearly loved by his flock, not least for his outstanding pro-life witness.

However grateful my Romanian hosts were in each place I spoke, I am more grateful to them for their commitment to life and the family. Many, many Romanian families are resisting the sex education invasion from the west which would indoctrinate and corrupt their children. If mandatory sex education is stopped at the Romanian border it will deal a much needed blow to the global campaign to sexualise and defile the innocent hearts and minds of the world’s children.

Share this article

Featured Image
Gayle Irwin

, ,

Auto dealer stops donating to United Way over its Planned Parenthood support

Gayle Irwin

November 25, 2015 (PregnancyHelpNews) -- “We don't normally get involved in politics. We don't try to throw our weight around with legislative issues. It was a bit of departure for us.”

Those are the words of Bill Marsh Jr., partner in his long-standing family business, Bill Marsh Auto Group, in Traverse City, Mich.

Bill Jr. and his brothers have taken a detour of sorts in recent days, opting out of the United Way of Northwest Michigan’s workplace contribution program after discovering that the agency provided funds for Planned Parenthood.

The decision to cut ties with United Way wasn’t made lightly, Marsh said.

“They leverage generosity in people,” Marsh said. “A lot of people might not donate otherwise (and) we knew a lot of people from United Way. Our company has a long-standing history with the United Way.”

Marsh researched United Way’s funding of Planned Parenthood in the wake of this summer’s release of videos by the Center for Medical Progress exposing Planned Parenthood's practices of selling baby body parts.

When an employee approached Marsh, saying he wanted to pull his contribution from the local United Way, Marsh decided it was time to take a fresh look at his company's support of the agency. A representative from the United Way had contacted him to set up a meeting, and Marsh used the opportunity to state his position.

“Toward the end of the conversation I shared with him the concern I had about the United Way's support for Planned Parenthood, especially in light of what had taken place,” Marsh said.

The representative told Marsh the local Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions, just women's health and cancer screenings.

“I said, 'In light of what's been disclosed, it's just not something we can turn a blind eye to,'” Marsh said, adding that, regardless of what the local affiliate offered, the organization’s ties to abortion could not be separated from their identity. “‘As long as you continue to support Planned Parenthood, we're not going to give you access to our employees.'”

The Bill Marsh Auto Group has about 275 employees and is known as a major contributor to charitable and community endeavors. Within a short time, Marsh received a call from the United Way’s local board president, who asked for a meeting.

Marsh again used this as an opportunity to take a stand for life.

“I repeated myself... 'If you're not willing to distance yourself from Planned Parenthood, we're just not in a position to give you access to our employees and won't re-up on the workplace campaign,'” he said.

The meetings were all cordial, Marsh said, pointing out that taking a stand can garner a business owner, or any individual, greater respect in the community.

“I really think people are attracted to people and organizations that take a stand, for the right reasons—standing up for their convictions, even if they don't necessarily agree,” Marsh said.

“Christianity is a comprehensive life system that affects every arena of our lives,” he said. “Whether it's in the marketplace of ideas, the public square, we have a understand the implications of choices and actions we make as citizens. As business people, we have leverage. Money talks. You generate a certain amount of influence—by donations, as well as how you treat your customers and employees, your reputation, your brand. It  goes go a long way towards influencing.”

Does Your United Way Give to Planned Parenthood?

Prior to the meetings with the local United Way representatives, Marsh investigated how the community agency spends its dollars. He contacted his sister, Terry Winship, who serves as CEO of True Care Women's Resource Center in Casper, Wyoming, to learn if there was a way to look into a potential connection between his local United Way and Planned Parenthood.

She provided him with a web link to the American Family Association’s site, which lists the United Way chapters donating to Planned Parenthood. Marsh discovered the United Way of Northwest Michigan does fund Planned Parenthood, directing $8,500 toward to the abortion giant in 2013, according to an IRS Form 990 on the site.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Now, Marsh encourages other pregnancy centers to inform and educate their supporters.

“They can be a source of information and a resource while being careful not to tell organizations what to do,” Marsh said. “They have to make decisions themselves, but there are a lot of business owners that are not aware of where their charitable dollars go. Faith-based organizations can provide great tools to allow people to see that and come to an understanding.”

Winship agreed.

“I think that every center director should know whether their local United Way gives money to Planned Parenthood,” she said. “If it does, there is an opportunity to share this information with our donors. Many donors are asked to contribute to local United Way campaigns at work. There may be pressure to contribute, but they can choose to opt out.

“Some donors are business leaders in the community who have the opportunity to, like my brother, express their concern about funding Planned Parenthood and take action. Knowledge is power and this is a great way, in a round-about way, to tell Planned Parenthood that we don’t want our hard-earned dollars going to an organization that deals in death and dismemberment.”

Marsh said his company will not be participating in the workplace campaign.

“We'll tell our employees, 'We've decided not to continue our relationship with United Way because of their support of Planned Parenthood' – they won't be surprised,” Marsh said. “We have a company Christmas party every year, and we pray before the meal. I said last year, 'We're not a Happy-Holidays type of organization, we're a Merry Christmas' – they know that, and for those who may not, it's an opportunity to share that with them.”

Marsh found the experience of standing for life as a business owner a positive one on many fronts.

“I came away from that experience feeling good that we did clarify our concerns and make that stand,” he said. “It gave us a forum to give legitimacy and weight to a very important social, moral position and communicate it in the public sphere with a high-profile, local charitable clearinghouse and say 'this is who we are and we're going to stand our ground,' My hope is that there will be an opportunity to get them to reconsider.”

Marsh is also thankful for the employee who voiced his concern several months ago.

“I'm grateful that we have some followers of Jesus that were willing to take a stand themselves and tell their employer,” he said. “He knew we were people of faith, so I think he was saying in a way, 'Hey, you guys need to know this.' It's easy to gloss things over and sort of sanitize things... even egregious moral issues.

“Business people tend to not talk about moral beliefs when dealing with other institutions. I learned that when you do, when you engage and share where your moral compass is, it's empowering and it's something that will gain you greater respect. That's not why you do it, but, (you do it) because our culture is dying for people to be clear with what they believe.”

Reprinted with permission from Pregnancy Help News.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook