I welcome this opportunity to expand my earlier statement in a comment box that pro-choice feminism "lacks moral standing to make convincing arguments" about other issues of interest to society.
I mean that freedom, reason and morality are intertwined; a corruption of one affects the others. If we hold that it is morally permissible to take innocent life on demand, then we have destroyed the moral basis for the obligation to feed, clothe, house and pay people a just wage. If some can be killed for arbitrary reasons ("arbitrary" means "based on or subject to individual judgment or discretion"), then the moral obligation to value all others is fatally undermined as well.
We can't divorce morality from reason and reality without landing, eventually, in the soup. And so, I think the Feminists for Life are undoubtedly right to give the Life issues priority. A feminist social vision can then expand from a sound foundation, and not from a quaking bog of misplaced (out of order) concepts of social justice. Here’s a little cautionary tale illustrating this point:
Once upon a time a frog wanted to cross a wide river. She saw a crocodile idling near the shore and asked if she could hitch a ride on her back.
"Sure, sister," replied the crocodile as she flexed her short arms and drew closer.
The frog hopped on and the two moved slowly across the river. When they were very near the other side, the crocodile turned around and snapped up the frog, dangling her over the water by her Barbie-like green legs.
"What!" cried the frog, bobbing and sobbing and flailing in the air. "You said you'd help me get to the other side!"
"Well," said the crocodile, "We've swum a long way, Baby, but you knew all the time I’m a croc." Chomp, gulp.