I noticed NOW is now opposing conscience protection. Conscience protection has nothing to do with ensuring equality for women. Conscience protection doesn't even restrict abortion. It doesn't restrict pro-choice doctors, or even pro-life doctors, from performing abortions. All it does is not force pro-life doctors to perform abortions. Not only that, but the source of the controversy is a rule that merely calls for the enforcement of laws already on the books!
I hate it that feminism has been taken over by Roebots.
Feminism is about affirming the rights of females human beings. Being pro-life is about affirming the rights of unborn human beings. Not only are the two compatible, the two groups overlap! It's not about "the right to choose when to have a child". Men have the same right. You choose by having sex and not using protection. A man does not have a right to kill the unborn child. Nobody has a right to kill the child once the child's existence begins. Once you have a child, you can't choose to not have a child by killing him or her.
Nobody has a right to choose to abuse their child. Feminism is not about letting women do whatever they want regardless of how immoral it is.
2. [After F. féminisme.] Advocacy of the rights of women (based on the theory of equality of the sexes). (Cf.
Statements by the original feminists such as calling abortion child murder can't be dismissed by saying abortion was illegal and dangerous back then. Those are statements of the worth of the child. Not merely stating that the procedure should be avoided, they state that it is morally wrong.
On a related note...
Being a nonpartisan organization does not mean all your members must be nonpartisan. Sarah Palin's membership in Feminists for Life in no way makes them conservative.