Anti-Choice Feminists = (Oxy)morons?

The Chicago Tribune has a half-assed assessment of the “breadth” of modern feminism. They use three examples to represent the spectrum of feminist organizations: Concerned Women for America (“bringing Biblical principles to public policy”), Feminists for Life (“Refuse to Choose”), and the Feminist Majority (“working for women’s equality”).
The Tribune took up the topic presumably because Supreme Court nominee John Roberts‘ wife is counsel to Feminists for Life. (Ellen Goodman turned in a good column on this subject.)
So I’ll take the article’s bait: Is there such thing as an anti-choice feminist? Not by my definition of feminism. I think you can be personally against abortion and still support other women’s right to choose, and therefore still be a feminist. I’ll also say it’s not in feminists’ best interest to alienate people who are not pro-choice but can be allies on other causes (like the Violence Against Women Act, which Feminists for Life supports).
But to me (someone who was not a gender studies major) reproductive choice is central to women’s full participation in society. Feminism is also about recognizing the intersection of many issues that affect women. So while I don’t object to anti-choicers like Feminists for Life calling themselves feminists, I also find it hard to stomach that they refuse to take a position on key issues beyond Roe v. Wade, such as Title IX, access to contraception and same-sex marriage. They fail to notice that supposed “pro-life” political leaders are not rushing to enact policies to support mothers by ensuring affordable child care, paid family leave, access to health care.
So what’s with Feminists for Life’s tagline, “Refuse to Choose”? Feminism is all about freedom to choose, and not just when it comes to abortion.