Hundreds of thousands responded to the Women’s March’s call for unity, flooding the Capitol on January 21st, the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration. The mission of the March posted on the official website, describes its purpose as “stand[ing] together in solidarity with our partners and children for the protection of our rights, our safety, our health, and our families – recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country.”
In preparation for the unifying historical event and staying true to its vision, Linda Sarsour — one of the organizers — commented on its wide platform which ranged from reproductive rights to immigration, saying “we don’t believe a quarter million people will see themselves in every platform. We are not a pro-abortion march, we are a pro-women march.” In short, the Women’s March was originally shaping up to be an act of solidarity among all American women.
On January 16, six days before the event, the March took a turn when its organizers revoked partnership with the New Wave Feminists — a pro-life group — as response to large amounts of criticism for allowing the group to partner with the March. Political director of Naral Pro-Choice America, Mitchell Stille, said in an interview, “Anti-choice women voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. They got exactly what they wanted, so I’m not sure exactly what the solidarity of that would be.”
This presumptuous generalization sent a clear message; anti-abortion women could not physically be kept from attending the March, but they were unwelcome. From this event rose a significant question: is the so called right to abortion one that is fundamental to women’s empowerment?
In response to the stance the Women’s march took, I have to say I am disappointed. Being what is called a legal alien, I could not vote, but if I could have I wouldn’t have voted for Donald Trump, yet I am a woman, an immigrant and anti-abortion. Somehow, this last characteristic made me unfit to march for myself and for my sisters, even though there are many aspects of women’s right that need to be marched for. A woman’s freedom does not boil down to her ability to legally end a pregnancy.
The Women’s March was an impressive and perhaps even a noble act, but its true purpose was not solidarity toward all women. Had it been so, a single issue would not have been so divisive. However, solidarity was only extended to those who fit one cookie-cutter ideology; I did not, conservative women did not, and neither did one in six women who voted for Hillary Clinton.
If women are truly attempting to stand up for each other’s rights, I would advise we begin by being open to dialogue with each other. After all, advocating for the unborn does not make me less of a woman and I’m clearly not the only one who feels this way.