Can Common Ground Prevail?

When it comes to the abortion conflict in the US a fascinating new consensus is emerging: the need for common ground. Americans, it seems, are weary of the acrimony, the endless fight. People want pro-choice and pro-life advocates to work together to reduce the need for abortion. Pro-choice groups have for years pushed measures designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy. They have promoted social programs that support poor pregnant women who are forced to make decisions based on economic need. They have pushed prevention over punishment, a mainstay of the traditional pro-life agenda. Surprisingly, after decades of resistance, some in the pro-life movement are stepping forward in support of these pro-choice goals, even if that means jeopardizing their standing in the established pro-life community.

According to Faith in Public Life Poll, the vast majority (83%) of voters, including white evangelicals (86%) and Catholics (81%), believe elected leaders should work together to find ways to reduce the need for abortion. Interestingly, the time may be ripe for a spirit of cooperation. Barrack Obama, with his promise of a new era of post-partisan politics, may be just the leader to promote this cause. When asked about abortion in the third debate, Obama predicted, "we can find some common ground." Indeed, the abortion conflict may emerge as an early test case of Obama's idealism, his belief that cooperation can prevail.

The key development, the one that may make common ground possible, is the emergence on the pro-life side of willing partners in this venture. In fairness, many pro-choice leaders have been cynical about the possibility of cooperating with opponents they often see as irrational and unbending. After all, their only response has been to try to outlaw abortion--a goal that has proven to have little impact on the prevalence of abortion. Ironically, it has been the pro-choice agenda that has lowered unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates worldwide. Primarily that has been through the dissemination of methods of birth control, something not a single pro-life group has supported.

Recently, several daring pro-life leaders have publicly announced a shift in their focus. Instead of seeking bans and restrictions on abortion, which have proven to have little effect on abortion rates, they are now supporting at least some of the proven effective ways to make abortion less necessary. A new breed of pro-life activist, catalyzed by this election, appears to be motivated more by results that timeworn rhetoric.

Take Douglas Kmiec who has impeccable pro-life, Catholic, and republican credentials. Kmiec has served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush and was the former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America. He also started "Pro-Life, Pro-Obama." Kmiec, like all of this new breed, still opposes abortion on moral grounds. He, like several other common ground advocates, has not identified an increase in the availability of birth control as area of common ground. But they have made a striking, and seemingly decisive break from their pro-life comrades. Perhaps most striking is the admission from their website: "Legal status of abortion does not necessarily impact abortion rates." Instead, Kmiec's group has turned to prevention and, in particular, social programs that can affect decisions. "Studies show that economic support for women and families reduces abortion," announces one section of the website.

Catholics United is also a new pro-life group that's calling for a common ground approach to the abortion conflict. James Salt, director of Catholics United explained, "People of faith are tired of leaders who wear the pro-life label without enacting policies that actually prevent abortions. It's time for candidates and elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, to move from rhetoric to results by addressing a comprehensive strategy to address abortion in America." The group's website lists as one of its top priorities "common ground abortion reduction initiatives," including moving, "beyond the angry rhetoric of the abortion "culture war" and enact policies that achieve actual results by addressing the root causes of abortion: lack of jobs, health care, and other economic supports for women and families."

Joel Hunter board member of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of one of the nation's largest churches, explained, "We are not compromising our values, but at the same time we are finding a way we can all accomplish our agenda, or at least a piece of our agenda, together."

And while what might be called a common ground movement has yet to formalize, there is at least one signal of its potency. Common ground pro-life leaders have won the ire of the old guard, anti-abortion hierarchy. Indeed the traditional pro-life old guard, the one at the helm for decades, view this new approach as a type of treason, moral and political. In fact, several openly seethe over the calls for cooperation. Doug Johnson, of National Right to Life, called Obama's common ground approach an "Abortion Reduction Scam." Last month, Joseph Schiedler, president of the Pro-Life Action League, wrote an op-ed in USA Today arguing against common ground and told the Washington Post, "It's a sellout, as far as we are concerned. You don't have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions."

For people on both sides of this long- and hard-fought issue, and certainly for the public, it appears that a turning point may have been reached. Common ground is emerging as a platform on which to build a common sense approach to reducing unwanted pregnancy and the need for abortion, a goal shared by pro-choice and pro-life. Clearly, the sides will not agree on everything - indeed the initial areas of agreement may be small. Yet, it is apparent that many people who are genuinely pro-life want real results, and equally as clear to them is that the current pro-life establishment and the Republican party have failed to provide those. The facts show that the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those which promote prevention, and support for poor women who want, and need help, to continue their pregnancies; traditional pro-choice policies. We on the pro-choice side are eager to have a willing partner, people who like us, seek progress on what has been, up until now, an intractable and divisive issue. Let us hope that the "pro-life" establishment doesn't stand in the way of this nascent common ground movement.

For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage

Comments

[patreilly]

Perhaps everyone should read Nassau County Executive Thomas R. Suozzi's Common Sense for the Common Good Address, May 10, 2005. Purists meet progressive pragmatism.

[athenalong]

One thing that I believe that people are not willing to acknowledge is that NEVER, not EVER, will common ground be able to be met on ANY ISSUE between GROUPS of people.

I personally am pro-life for myself, but pro-choice on a societal level. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my body and life, and therefore, I won't tell anyone else what to do with theirs. I may not agree with or like what you do, but it's simply not my place to tell you what to do with your life.

[tom ellison]

"I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my body and life, and therefore, I won't tell anyone else what to do with theirs. I may not agree with or like what you do, but it's simply not my place to tell you what to do with your life."

But we do tell other people what they can and can't do with their lives. For example, I'm sure you are against child molestation, arson, theft, second hand smoke, etc.

Point is, you do indeed tell others what they can and can't do in society.

[athenalong]

Unfortunately, we live in a very stratified world, that reaches across and spans all kinds of strata. Not everyone is the same, and therefore, I would question anyone who would believe that everyone would and should have the same ideas/outl­ook/belief­s. That's silly.

Personally, I don't have any tattoos, but I really like tattoo art. My reasons for NOT getting one is mine, and the other person's is theirs. In some religions, getting a tattoo or marking/piercing the body is forbidden, and in others, it's a rite. These two belief systems will more than likely not have a common ground on the practice of tattooing/body piercing. And this is fine.

[athenalong]

When we focus on life/death, we all see it through our own (choose your color) lenses. We are shaped by so many things and influences, and we all make decisions for different reasons.

My main hope that I *wish* would happen, is that the Anti-Choice (not Pro-Life) crowd would place as much energy and emphasis on protecting LIFE IN ALL OF ITS FORMS AND STAGES. Once that baby that was not aborted comes into this world, put the same energy into helping to ensure that its life is comfortable and prosperous. And same goes for the mother that decided to do what you wanted her to do and have that baby. Help her as well. Those Iraqi children who have been maimed from cluster bombs and lost their parents, what efforts have you made to help them or others like them? What about all of those children that are swirling in the foster 'care' system, bouncing from temporary home to temporary home, and many being abused in the process (and abuse comes in many forms)? What about those kids who, once they have reached the age of majority, are released, and have NO FAMILY? NO RESOURCES (and resources come in many forms)? I know that I wouldn't be where I am today without my family. I could go on and on.

If you're TRULY going to be Pro-Life, REALLY BE -FOR- LIFE. From cradle to grave.

[athenalong]

One thing that I believe that people are not willing to acknowledge is that NEVER, not EVER, will common ground be able to be met on ANY ISSUE between GROUPS of people.

I personally am pro-life for myself, but pro-choice on a societal level. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my body and life, and therefore, I won't tell anyone else what to do with theirs. I may not agree with or like what you do, but it's simply not my place to tell you what to do with your life.

One of the most BOTHERSOME problems that I have with many people is their insatiable need to try to force decisions for the GROUP instead of minding their own house and making sure that they are living the best and most healthy way that they can. In a random sampling of any group, you are never going to reach 100% consensus. Even if all 'say' that they are in agreement, a lot of people just go along just to not be the outcast with a difference of opinion because the road is much easier. How many times have you gone along with something for that same reason? And let's face it, not all people find the strength to speak up/stand up when they wished they could or knew they should have.

[ProudNeoCon]

As a person who is in the middle ground of abortion debate I find both sides extreamly pig-headed.

As a disclaimer: this is my position:

I am against Roe vs Wade is wrong because it creates the right which does not exist in constitution. On another hand I would support such right on federal or state level. I believe that abortion until certain date should be legal (3-4 months) and illegal after that (unless there is danger for mother). I believe that kids should be required to notify parents if they want abortion (after all they often need to get permission for a tatoo)... I believe that prevention should be importnat part of any programm but not in the six grade.

I think vast majority of pro-life and pro-choice people would agree with that approach. Unfortunatly both movements are dominated by extreames

[anitaj]

Most students reach their 13th birthday during their 6th grade year.
The average American girl gets her first period at age 13. (http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2005/apr/04_0063.htm)
This means that up to half of American girls may reach menarche without having basic information about what causes pregnancy and how it can be prevented. Sixth grade is too late for a first primer on the birds and the bees.
Of course, children and teenagers should be encouraged to talk with their parents about the issues that concern/co­nfuse/frig­hten them. However, a study in 2002 revealed that only half of women aged 18-19 and just over one-third of men in this age group reported ever speaking with a parent about contraception before they turned 18.
Sex education in public schools is intended to cover vital health education that many parents are obviously reluctant to address. The curriculum should provide comprehensive, accurate, clear and age appropriate information.
There is a lower rate of both unintended pregnancy and abortion in countries where there is ready access to contraceptive and reproductive health services and comprehensive sex education. The age at first intercourse is also higher.
Nobody likes abortion. Let's work together to give individuals and families the tools they need to prevent unintended pregnancy.
For sources of statistice cited here, please see: http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/sex_ed.pdf
We can argue about whether there should be a right to privacy another day.

[DSPS]

Not only is 6th grade too late, it's positively the WRONG time to start teaching about reproduction. It's the very self-conscious, giggle stage. Each kid is totally wrapped up in SELF and what others are thinking about same.

Starting in 1st-2nd grade, kids see themselves as the baby in the equation, not as parents and certainly not as potential lovers. Guided conversations about their own births (most have a story to tell!) and about how families commit to wanting a baby or a 2nd, 3rd baby is the place to start. Age-appropriate lessons every year make the topic an accepted and expected school subject. Admittedly that only reduces the giggling SOMEWHAT, later on.

[indy100]

I consider myself a middle-ground person, and believe I see both sides of this issue better than many others. As an adoptee I realize my biological mother could have made a different choice. As a mother I don't believe I could ever have had an abortion myself, but I don't believe that option should be taken away from women. PREVENTION and education are the keys. Abortions will never be completely eliminated, but with prevention taught at a young age, yes 12 or 13, and with things like Plan B (morning after pill) they can be drastically reduced. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that if you don't discuss sex, pregnancy and disease won't be an issue, is just plain stupid. Look at Sarah Palin's family for example. Or the fact that here in "family values" Utah there is a very high teen-age pregnancy rate. Those who are adamantly anti-abortion generally tend to be against any sort of programs that assist low income mothers and families. Babies are of the utmost importance before they're born, but not after. Unless of course those babies are to be placed for adoption, which I believe is the core goal of the anti-abortion crowd. Outlaw abortions and give women few choices so they will relinquish their babies. I am not anti-adoption, but it definitely has it's own set of lifelong issues and problems.

[ponderingmuch]

Pro-birth control IS pro-life.

If just that one point gets accepted, I think some cooperation can happen.

Short of that, there is only punishment versus choice, in my view.

[jesmer e]

Point taken. Except this issue goes beyond public policy. I think it's about control.

[SonofLiberty1]

One more idea:

Instead of Pro Choicers going against Pro lifers, maybe it would be better to target

The Republican Party.

Lately, I've begun to realize that in many Catholic Parishes, The Republican Party rules and is adored more than Christ.

[diggs]

That may be true for many Catholic Parishes, but our church is in one of the bluest towns in America, not many Republicans. In the church parking lot, I saw one McCain/Palin sticker during the whole election season. Obama/Biden stickers and posters were everywhere. I myself sport a Pro-Family Pro-Obama sign on my door and was so relieved that my Obama stickers weren't an issue on Sunday mornings. Believe me, I count my blessings.

[SonofLiberty1]

In the final analysis, it's all about relationships as in looking for love.

Perhaps, if we really talk more about that and make sure we do it when we talk to our kids, whether they be our biological kids or our nations children, perhaps we would begin to live in a much more saner world.

Education always begins in the home....

It starts with each of us....

[RickCadena]

What no one has talked about in their posts is sexual education and our obligation to discover and know our own sexuality so that we can live it responsibly.

As a fallen away Catholic, I feel that the church wants us ignorant and repressed. Abstinence is simply self-imposed repression coupled with ignorance of oneself. In his book "To Have or to Be", Dr. Erich Fromm dedicated about 3 pages to describing how all religious institutions want to control their followers by breaking their will, and that is achieved through sexual repression. All I ever got from the church in connection with my own sexuality were guilt trips. There was no real orientation or guidance regarding my own sexuality so that I could grow and become a better person.

My best guidance on my own personal sexuality came from my psychoanalyst when in a session, he said this: "The sexual relationship must be a GIFT". Then he went on to describe how the sexual relationship opens up dimensions of nonsexual human intimacy that would otherwise not be opened, and how those dimensions of intimacy bind the couple physically, emotionally, and spiritually as one. This was six months before I met my present wife, and this is what we have lived over the last 20 years. We wouldn't have it any other way. Since the church refuses to adapt its teachings to a modern world, it can go jump in the lake on this issue.

[SonofLiberty1]

Rick, I don't think you really understand the church. Yes, sometimes it's a bunch of fallible old men but mostly it's not.

It's like President-elect Obama remarked "Sexuality is sacred" It's a gift given to all of us.
Jesus said it best when he said that when you have relations it's for life. And I don't think he was just talking about the possibility of having a child either.

I think there is a real spiritual component to sexuality that most folks sort of understand but don't think much about.

Sounds like your therapist was pretty much on track but you have the hang up with the church.

Yes, there are some things that have been drilled into all of us but I truly wonder how long you have been away?

Perhaps you forget the redemptive quality of our faith perhaps.

Fact is, that most Catholics don't delve deep enough into their faith.

I advise you to start studying the Saints as in St. Faustina and The Chaplet of Divine Mercy.

I find that most people just remember all the fire and brimstone but easily forget all the little helps
we have been given and most don't know them at all.

[RickCadena]

Hello SonofLiberty1:

I am 66 years old, but the church lost me when I was 12. I had a paper route, was lured and sexually abused by a customer. My parents eventually found out, we filed charges and I testified at a hearing in court. I was devastated then.

I was attending catholic school then and having a banner year in the choir and as an altar boy. Somehow, City Hall notified the school and the nuns punished me severely. I was kicked out of the altar boys and then the choir. Sister superior, the principal, called me into her office, read me the riot act, telling me how immoral, dirty, and filthy I was. I was also humiliated whenever possible in the classroom. My teenage years were very painful despite going to public school. I stopped going to mass at age 21.

Since then, I have viewed religious institutions as my public enemy number one in my desperate search to be a sexually healthy person. Fortunately, psychoanalysis helped me to heal my wounds and get the answers I needed about healthy, responsible human sexuality, something I never got from the church.

I still retain a very strong belief in God, but I stay away from the catholic church in self-defense. The church's stance on human sexuality, in my eyes, is very backward, So I keep my distance. Yes, you are right. I do have a hangup with regard to the catholic church.

[Rogan]

You're misunderstanding: confusing spirituality with organized religion - you missed the distinction between, as the cliche goes, "Gospel and church."

I'm a deeply spiritual and religious person. I would never set foot in a church, any church, ever. (Though I agree with you heartily, about studying the Saints!) So I saw clearly that RickCadena meant to make negative comments about the institution - the Church - but not his own or anyone else's actual spirituality, or personal religious practice, which is often VERY personal, and not directly connected to or beholden to (and certainly, is never answerable to) any "institution," a Church with a capital C, or otherwise.

[mach]

For all of you who insist on sepration of choice and state and especially insist that "religous ideals" should not be legislated_ i'd like your honest answer to the following:

Should we NOT legislate against those who would behead an innocent over jihad? Should we NOT prosecute those who commit honor killings on young women because they are dating the wrong person or are homosexuals? Should we NOT prosecute vaginall circumsision (mutilation)? After all, these are all practices based on religous ideals.

[aofh]

I think the question that begs to be ask is what is the proper role of religion? What is religion for? Beheadings, honor killings, circumcisions don't strike me as spiritual matters but, rather, cultural matters. Culture as identity. Is religion also about identity or does it transcend identity, or is it about identity beyond the collective identity enforced by culture?

My answer to your question is that those are not religious concerns and that those who justify their actions and beliefs on religious grounds are indulging their prejudices. They are using religion to project power they haven't earned.

[diggs]

Unfortunately, rather than focusing on the goodness that is found within all religions of the world, people use minute differences to kill and start wars. The radical wing-nuts, Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever, use God as some excuse to hate and hurt when really all religions promote peace, forgiveness, helping the less fortunate, things of that nature.

Religion really isn't the problem, people are. They take stuff out of context and try to play God themselves, passing judgment and punishment. I'm Catholic, I go to church, I pray, I'm pro-choice, and I proudly campaigned for and voted for Obama.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

Such things are not done in the USA.

If you want the dictates of your religion to have the force of law, get a time machine and go back four centuries.

[johaster]

I would gladly relinquish the high ideals and crappy performances of the Cristian right for realistic ideals and good performance of my liberal friends.

[ErikW65]

And yet the "Pro-Life" groups " have "not identified an increase in the availability of birth control as area of common ground."

It's their lack of ability to "identify" and accept the fact that the use of birth control devices prevents abortion, which has always led me to believe it's not primarily the killing of the fetus that bothers them, but the idea that some people are getting away with having sex without paying the biological price of childbirth (that they have been forced to pay because of their religion's edicts against the use of those convenient devices.)

Because it makes them seem prudish to object to what others do in their bedrooms, they focus on the plight of aborted fetus as an innocent victim. But in their opposition to the use of birth control devices, they expose their hypocrisy: how do you consistently maintain a moral objection to something, and also to the prevention of the that same thing?

This situation exposes the fact that, while these people think their religion is the answer to all the world's problems, it obviously is not the answer to this one, because there is no way to prevent abortions without using birth control. Relying on abstinance is not feasible given human nature, and neither is the idea that all sexually active women can simply get married and have children as the result of their sexual activity. We can't afford that kind of population growth, or social spending.

[ShakeYourComplacency]

This is such an excellent post, because it really cuts through the smoke, and all that smoke is what's blinding well-meaning people like our blogger, Miss Page. This (summarized) sentence of yours is right on:

"It's their lack of ability to identify that the use of birth control prevents abortion, which has led me to believe it's not the killing of the fetus that bothers them (most), but the idea that people are getting away with having sex without paying the biological price of childbirth."

That's exactly the right conclusion to come to, and I came to that conclusion myself years ago. Recent challenges they've made to the very definition of pregnancy lately have only reinforced that belief for me.

Another accurate conclusion:

"There is no way to prevent abortions without using birth control."

Of course there is no way to prevent them without some sort of actual prevention, other than the complete denial of sexually active teens, young adults, and adults. You can supress them, and shame people about having them, and threaten doctors, but you're not going to remove the need for them.

[SonofLiberty1]

Women aren't fertile 24/7/365 you know.

Self denial isn't a bad thing. Talk to some folks who get married and have had sex with other partners before they got married....

They will tell you they wished they had waited...

It's been done for hundreds and thousands of years like that.
Yes you can wait...why do you think Engagements used to be so short?

[Bitsko]

I took out your book from the library, Ms. Page. Well done.