[UPDATED] As far as Hannah Murphy is concerned, Bernie Sanders is more “pro-life” than Donald Trump, even though Sanders supports abortion rights and Trump has started to attack abortion programs and funding, both domestic and global.
Murphy herself is anti-abortion, but she says her distinction deals with broader matters. In simple terms: Sanders is more focused on policies that would benefit women socially, including pregnant women who choose to give birth, she says.
The Brighton resident’s view of the two politicians, however, reflects her broader views of the so-called pro-life movement, of which she has become something of an internal critic.
She refers to herself as a nonviolent feminist, and she follows the consistent life ethic: a principle that opposes abortion and views it as a form of violence but also opposes poverty, racism, war, the death penalty, and assisted suicide, all of which it also considers violence. Murphy wants to see a movement that addresses the underlying social issues that lead women to seek abortions and one that doesn’t shame women who have the procedure, she says.
“No woman wants to have an abortion,” Murphy says. “It’s not like, ‘I’m going to go get pregnant just so I can experience an abortion.’ That’s bullshit.”
The mainstream anti-abortion movement focuses almost entirely on the fetus and pays too little attention to empowering women, pregnant or not, Murphy says. It equates womanhood with procreation and too often is misogynistic and patriarchal, she says.
Murphy has also taken the movement to task over a well-worn protest tactic. In February, she penned an op-ed for the Democrat and Chronicle urging abortion opponents to stop protesting outside of Planned Parenthood and, in particular, to stop using signs with pictures of dismembered fetuses.
“What I was asking those people to do was really reflect on if they were being peaceful,” Murphy said during a recent interview. “I don’t think doing that is peaceful. I think that it’s causing harm. And even for the people who, you changed their minds, you still inflicted harm on them.”
Abortion is an extremely volatile issue, especially right now. Abortion rights advocates have been in fight mode for years, as state after state placed severe restrictions on abortion clinics. The new laws forced the last remaining facilities in some states to close their doors.
Right now, advocates are fighting a Republican bill in Congress that would strip funding from Planned Parenthood facilities, which at best would hurt the ability of clinics across the country to provide reproductive health services and breast cancer screenings.
Murphy doesn’t support defunding or dismantling Planned Parenthood, because people rely on it for so many services other than abortion; she does object to the state covering abortions through Medicaid. She believes sex education and accessible, free birth control would go a long way toward preventing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. And she wants abortion to be unnecessary, not illegal.
She’s not alone in her views. Other members of Feminists for Nonviolent Choices, the consistent life ethic organization of which she is vice president, share her criticisms of the mainstream anti-abortion movement. They, too, do not want Planned Parenthood defunded, Murphy says. [As of this article’s publication, Murphy had resigned from the Feminists for Nonviolent Choices board. She was speaking for herself during the interview, not the group.]
But she also critiques some people – not all – in abortion rights circles for their reluctance to work with abortion opponents on issues where they agree. She feels that for abortion rights advocates to be truly pro-choice, they too must work to improve society for women who choose to give birth.
Murphy talked to CITY recently about her criticisms of the anti-abortion movement, her thoughts on Planned Parenthood, and her interest in working with abortion rights supporters on issues where they agree. The following is an edited version of that discussion.
CITY: Why do you object to abortion opponents protesting outside of Planned Parenthood and holding pictures of fetuses?
Murphy: They’re gruesome images. I think that using those violates the dignity of that person, violates the dignity of whomever created that person. I also think that it does harm to the intended audience. I think that it’s just mean.
I guess my argument, though, to people who use them, is: It’s not working, so just stop. It’s not necessary. There are other things and approaches; I don’t find it to be a non-violent approach. I find it to be very judgmental and aggressive.
A lot of people assume that Planned Parenthood is Enemy No. 1 of abortion opponents. But it sounds like you see Planned Parenthood as a valuable health care provider. Is that fair?
People see them as the enemy, people see them as evil, and I think that’s a really uncivilized, backward – I don’t know what the good word to use is – way of thinking. It’s a very separatist way.
I just don’t know that there are enough of these accessible, non-faith-based health centers. There are some, but are there enough? I don’t know. I don’t think so.
I also know that people who have gone other places feel comfortable at Planned Parenthood. So who am I to say that they shouldn’t have access to the type of environment where they feel comfortable? I think Planned Parenthood has done a really commendable job reaching out, expanding itself to, like, the LGBT-plus community. That’s not happening elsewhere. And that’s what I think a lot of people get wrong.
Do you, or would you, advocate for a legal ban on abortion?
I think that’s a slippery slope. So what happens if I do that? If abortion becomes illegal, what happens? Women still get abortions, right? I just don’t see that being the solution.
It’s about education and awareness. There needs to be a more communal approach. We don’t have that. We’re so individualistic in this country, and that’s in every space.
I feel like I stumble here because I don’t have the answer, but I feel that I just am not at that point where I can say I would want to see it illegal, because I think it’s too dangerous. I think it would be dangerous for women if that were the case, which kind of makes me contradictive.
How do you get to the point where activists who differ on abortion can actually work together on shared interests or goals?
We work our f**king butts off.
We [Feminsts for Nonviolent Choices] do a series where we focus on a different human-rights issue that’s relevant to the Rochester community and also globally. So we’ve done intimate partner violence, we’ve done sex trafficking, we’ve done female gendercide, we’ve done disability justice. Our next project is about incarceration. We find common ground by addressing the things on which we agree, and it works.
One of the things that came out was the Rochester Regional Coalition Against Human Trafficking, which we’re a founding member of. Because at that time in 2013, there were a lot of local incidents of human trafficking. And so all of these different groups were working on the issue, and we got together for a meeting – different people – started talking, formed a coalition, and now here we are still together all these years later.
Abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents seem wary of giving a platform to the opposing side, even if they agree on other priorities.
That’s a risk. My thing is, ‘Change me.’ I’m not afraid of listening to your story, your statistics, your experience, your point of view. I’m not afraid to change. I understand it, but if your platform, what you believe in, is true, why are you hiding what other people want to say? Transparency, people: put it out there. People are going to make up their minds. I don’t think that not giving a platform to people is the way to go.
A poor woman who has an abortion is still f**kin’ poor. A woman whose boyfriend is in jail for a minor drug offense, and she has an abortion: he’s still in jail. We’re not addressing the real problems here, and that’s what pisses me off about people in the pro-choice movement who aren’t willing to come to the table.
Pro-choice has to mean more than supporting abortion. It has to respect and support all reproductive choices, all reproductive rights.
This article appears in Apr 12-18, 2017.
As an activist for the pro-life feminist movement, I agree with most of Hannah’s concerns. I object to the use of graphic images and see it as exploitation, I oppose war, capital punishment and any violent action taken against human being. I would like to see both side of the debate come together to work on solving the issues that drive women to abortion. I have experienced the reluctance of both sides to do so although, pro-life people seem more willing than are pro-choice people to work together. I do however, somewhat disagree about funding Planned Parenthood. Yes, they provide services other than abortion and yes, in certain areas, Planned Parenthood may be women’s only option (more data on this is needed however but they do not and will not provide mammograms in any of their clinics or prenatal care in most of their clinics (not profitable enough is my guess) which are central services for women. My 2nd concern about Planned Parenthood is that they have been shown over and over to put profits first and they have been shown so often to be a corrupt organization that really lacks good transparency. Why should taxpayers fund any organization that has been shown to have questionable ethics? PP has an army of lawyers that constantly get them out of legal trouble and considerable media protection to help them preserve their reputation. Whether or not someone wants to see Planned Parenthood de-funded should not be an obstacle to people coming together to listen to each other and change hearts.
Planned Parenthood should provide abstinence classes and group sessions for those young women with no money, resources who want to have children as a way to sustain themselves in their society. Offering free condoms is a good start which they’ve been doing for years.
Free check-ups and wellness classes are good. Tips on how to eat healthy are good. After all, they are being funded with federal dollars. Coexist with many health care providers to educate on how much it actually costs to have a child in a hospital. Let these young women know that it’s taxpayer money that they themselves don’t contribute to, pays for it all.
What are the consequences of having a child when they need to go out and work, child care is expensive, “can you afford such a luxury” without looking to the county to help subsidize your child care? The answer is, wait for it…they don’t care. Why? because our government says, “you don’t have to care, we’re gonna pay for this and the next 6 kids you’re gonna have, so you don’t have to worry.” “By the way, would you like housing assistance with that, how about free medical, oh wait, how about free food?
Being on social Services is no picnic. Planned Parenthood should go much deeper on educating the masses.
I thank you City Newspaper for showing graphic signs, in the newspaper, it was not on line. This is NOT about you & how offensive graphic signs are to you, it is about the baby in the womb, who will look like this after an abortion. Dismemberment is not pretty & that is what they do to innocent, voiceless babies. Hannah Murphy needs to re think if she is pro life, it didn’t sound like that to me. Planned Parenthood kills babies & that’s enough for you not to go there.
Abortion on demand and without apology!!
“She feels that for abortion rights advocates to be truly pro-choice, they too must work to improve society for women who choose to give birth.”
What?? Who donates to Planned Parenthood, the organization that offers prenatal, postnatal, and emotional support for pregnant teens? Certainly NOT anti-abortion folks. Who supports in-school daycare for teens with children, so that they can graduate? Certainly NOT the red-leaning, anti-abortion folks. Who supports government aid for poor women with children? Certainly NOT the red-leaning anti-abortion folks.
The basis of pro-choice is to allow women A CHOICE to have a wanted child. We pro choicers do the best we can to support that.
Yay Hannah!! “Abortion should be unnecessary, not illegal.” YES! YES! YES!! And I’ve been saying this for years too: ” no one WANTS to have an abortion.” The point is that if faced with an unwanted pregnancy a woman has the right to make that very personal, difficult and painful choice. She should not be forced , one way or the other.
Teresa Kennelly
For clarity, I thought I should comment:
I more than appreciate City covering this topic and doing so with a perspective that is often ignored within the feminist movement. I do, however, think it a reach to call me “Pro PP”. It would be fair to say I am a proponent of the non-abortion services they provide and the way in which they serve community members who have been disenfranchised by the greater healthcare system in this country (e.g., young people, people of color, the disabled and LGBTIA+).
I do wish PP would do more to prevent abortions. Because although there are certainly situations wherein abortion is necessary, I find the cheerleader chant of “Abortion on demand and without apology!” to be trite and lacking clarity. Context is essential, and I find sweeping statements like the one stated to be yet another way to divide those who really just want to support women.
When I say I do not want abortion to be illegal, I say this because I do not trust the government to protect women who need abortions. I think about those making the decisions (and yes, it’s become a cliche, but they are mostly older white men), and it scares me because I do not believe them to be prolife or nonviolent; here we have a VP who thinks conversion therapy for gays is somehow humane- this is not a person I trust with protecting anyone’s rights.
I received Medicaid and WIC for two of my four pregnancies. These services are good and necessary. We cannot defund or even reduce funds for these programs. We cannot defund organizations that provide birth control and sex education. These actions are counterproductive, and by supporting the defunding, I think people put the life of the fetus over that of others involved, and I do not believe this to be prolife or nonviolent.
Some of the comments here reflect the problem within the feminist movement. Anger is good when it is constructive, but otherwise self-serving and destructive. There are many proL and proC folks who are caught in the middle of this volatile conversation (if you can call it a conversation); people who are sick of the screaming and name calling and judging and downright meanness. These are the people who find themselves disengaging or remaining on the parameter- hoping that the fanatics will realize that communal work is not possible without conversation, collaboration and some civility.
It was a difficult decision to accept this interview. I have received much support, but have also been labeled disloyal to the prolife movement. Herein lies the problem: on both “sides” we are afraid to speak up -not only for fear of what our opponents will think of us, but what our allies will. Within any movement there will be disagreement – it’s our choice to acknowledge that we will always have this or continue to tell each other to shut up. I will not be silenced by anyone. I will not silence anyone. I choose to engage with people who I know to be earnest in their support for women – whether they be proL or proC.
Hannah – thank you for doing this interview. You express yourself in an articulate, intelligent and passionate manner which I appreciate. An excellent POV piece. Very thought provoking. I plan to share with friends with a variety of opinions on this difficult discussion.
Okay everybody. We all have seen the images of the dead from the Nazi Holocaust. We remember the images of the dead in Rwanda. Right? We remember the images of the Bosnia-Herzegovina, of Iraq, Sudan, Tibet, Kosovo, Syria, Pol Pot, The U.S. Civil War, WWI, WWII, U.S. Slavery. But hey everyone, for Abortion, no pictures. Okay? Is that okay with everyone if we just refrain from using pictures of dead babies? I meant to say fetuses, not babies, because they aren’t babies, are they? Wait, can we see that picture again to make sure that it wasn’t a picture of a baby?
A picture speaks a thousand words…I only wish the babies in those pictures had a chance to say just one word.
I appreciate City printing Hannah Murphy’ s interview . While I don’t agree with everything she says, she provides a perspective we seldom see.
I essentially agree with her stance: killing is wrong. I feel that taking another person’s life is wrong exept when there is no other option. Therfore I am opposed to capital punishment and abortion and am never eager to see war (but realize it cannot always be avoided) . I don’t include assisted suicide as something I am strictly opposed to because that involves deciding to take your own life, not someone else’s. I am uncomfortable with it, but will not judge someone for wanting to end their own suffering.
I do feel very strongly we need to call it what it is . When a person requests necessary assistance to end their life that is by definition assisted suicide. The only reason someone such as a recent letter submitter would want to rename it something as nondescript as “death with dignity ” is because that person feels suicide is automatically shameful. I don’t feel that way. I do feel calling assisted suicide “death with dignity ” implies that the alternative – choosing to live until your life comes to a natural end – is not dignified. Surely the author of the letter did not intend to shame those who are termilly ill and do not opt to end their own lives. There are many ways to die in a “dignified” manner.
The reason most self described Pro-Life people do not partner with PP is not because we are ‘uncivilized’ or ‘backward’ in our thinking, it is because we recognize that these are two contradictory ideals.
To be Pro-Life means to recognize that a human being at their earliest stage of development is still a human being and so to kill that person at any point during their lifespan is wrong.
PP is the country’s leading provider in this form of procured death. They do it roughly 330,000 times a year. ” 86 percent of the organizations non-government provided revenue is garnered from the abortions it provides, generating a significant portion of its profit.”- Kelly Riddell the Washington Times.
Unlike other alternative comprehensive health care providers, abortion is an essential component to keeping PP economically solvent-they need women to abort to stay open so they sell women to this end. They do not deliver living babies.
If a government funded organization is killing 330,000 people a year, could you really over look that to find common ground? What common ground is left? What good could trump that?