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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There's a hoary old gag that goes, "A conservative is a former liberal who got mugged." To that we can now add, "A pro-choice woman is an former pro-life woman who got raped." It took an awful lot of initial failure to reduce the incidence of abortion to show at least some doctrinaires that prevention of pregnancy in the first place is the key. Those who refuse to learn that straightforward lesson remain misogynists, the kind of worms who still think that "she asked for it."
I think you are right to hope that Obama is just the leader for a common-ground movement, a search for common ground on a whole range of issues that have traditionally divided Americans. In his political philosophy, Obama sounds much like a "deconstru
As an aging male I believe my influence (and that of all other males) on this debate should be minimal.
However I've always wondered what the pro life lobby would say if the pro choicers insisted on therm having abortions ?
It obviously seems OK for the pro lifers to impose their view - why is the imposition of the opposite so outrageous ?
Surely in personal matters, no one should have the right or the ability to impose their personal view on others ?
Please, the man needs to be much more involved in this than has usually been true-the man either becomes a father for the next 18 years or not, and that is an enormous responsibility.
The gap that I have noticed for a long long time in the prolife/prochoice argument is that the prolife people never seem to say who is going to support the child and the mother of the child if the birth is done. When I say "support" I mean financial and emotional support for 18-22 years, until the child is an employed adult. Are prolife people helping all the women and their male partners (the very large number of them) who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant with a decent place to live, a well-paid job, health insurance, and education (for the child, and any needed education/
Small sustainablefarmer is right on the target.The answer to reducing the number of abortions is simple. The catholics must allow contraception, unless they are prepared to completely support the parents and the child. It is unfair to expect taxpayers to pay for this , to support any church;s decision to decide for a mother is intolerable. There is even talk of taking away all prevention methods. What are all the anti-choice people going to do with this huge increase in population? We are running out of water, food and space. We must control the growth or we will all die. We pro-choice people would also like to lower the rate of abortions. Let us join together to provide free contraceptives, or be prepared to be financially responsible for the family and child until the child is 18.You say abstinence only. That does not work!!!!, so if you are serious about reducing abortions, you must support brith prevention and long term care for baby and family.. Now YOU have a choice.
It's about time some of the 'culture wars' fighters put down the poisonous rhetoric and begin working to finding common ground.
Too bad more groups do not do the same and leave the hate, the heated rhetoric that drives people away rather then toward understanding and working together.
I have listened to the culture wars since the early 80s and so sick of it, identity politics and the burrowing in with your group or tribe rather then looking for ways of coming together. I've long thought alot of the culture wars have been so damaging as it has played a large role in our country going downhill and the quality of life eroding in this country. Because everyone is so busy being entrenched and at war with each other over culture issues we have lost sight of the big picture and solving problems. Our leaders and legislators are paralyzed and nothing has gotten done that has been for the good of the country.
You are exactly right
That is so well stated. We, as a nation, have become a nation of intolerance. Groups believe that the only right ideas are theirs and refuse to see the diversity in our country and instead has tried to make us carbon copies. The diversity is what makes our nation so rich!
"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."
LET'S REVIEW:
MOST teen-aged girls are impregnated by ADULT MALES.
There are at least TWO KNOWN perscription medications that can PREVENT PREGNANCY immediately after "the deed is done".
This argument focuses ONLY on the WOMAN and her EGGS at what is done with them or to them.
There is NO NEED for abortions in this country IF ALL OF THE FACTORS ABOVE are contemplated, discussed and ACTIONS TAKEN.
PUT IT IN THE MALE'S 'COURT'.
Men, control your sperm.
They are YOUR 'family jewels', not to be spilled lightly.
Contraception is YOUR responsibility. PERIOD.
"...contro
or is your affected post just hyperbole?
prevention. then why is it still an issue for a woman to get a prescribed birth control from her pharmacist? i bet her male counterpart can still get his viagra filled without harrassment. buy his condoms without having to debate with the pharmacist. this article is great to read...but
You bring up a good point about birth control not just being about having babies. Someone close was on the pill for medical reasons (yes, there are legitimate medical reasons for needing the pill) and I dread to think what would have happened to her is she had run into one of those pharmacists who refuse to dispense it on the grounds that it violates their "conscience".
There are alternatives to using the pill, nobody wants to explore them. I am not opposed to using the pill for such cases but the truth is, the pill is not totally safe either. I know many women who have had medical problems who were on the pill. Lives have been destroyed, that's not an exaggeration.
Education + Economic Opportunity + Birth Control = Fewer Abortions. It's as simple as that. As soon as the Right comes back to the real world, there will always be a war over this issue. I see nothing "common ground" about this "new breed" of pro-lifers. Their ministries simply just give up the fight about legality, that's all, and instead focus on sending unwed pregnant teens to "christian camps" and counseling (ie, brainwash, coerce) young women in dire need. The only way to common ground is for the Right to embrace Education, Economic Justice, and BIRTH CONTROL.
this post sounds more like a victory speech than a story about compromise. i don't see any examples of compromise on the the part of the prochoicers.
it would go a long way towards compromise if the pro choice movement clarified the issue by proclaiming something along the lines that abortion is not the recomended choice but must remain a choice. it would also help if agencies like planned parenthood developed an adoption network to provide another choice, perhaps in alliance with prolife advocates.
Roe v Wade was the compromise.
Roe v Wade was no compromise
With 40+ years with first Planned Parenthood then a large countywide abortion rights org, and countless radio and cable tv debates, I can attest that those opposed to legal abortion (the term pro-life will never escape my lips or computer) never agreed to the accessibility of birth control for women of any age.
As far as our side, including Planned Parenthood, I've never heard of a compromise that didn't deny rights to a specific group of females. An example is minors: our agreeing to state parental consent or notification would deny access to abortion to teenagers in a the state. Cutting off Medicaid for abortions has the same impact on poor women. Etc., with any restriction yet proposed. Therefore, we've never been asked for a compromise we could live with.
Look, to be honest, the problem is artificial brith control. You know there are ways of not getting pregnant.
Part of the problem is that everyone forgets a little something we heard in first grade...
SELF CONTROL.
"As far as our side, including Planned Parenthood, I've never heard of a compromise that didn't deny rights to a specific group of females"
And yet you deny the child her life, you deny the right of the father of the child you abort...yo
"Primarily [abortion] has been through the dissemination of methods of birth control, something not a single pro-life group has supported.
Call me cynical, but it's because of the above statement that I don't trust the anti-choicers, for two reasons.
First, there's no way to argue that BC = abortion, or that it's not the most effective way of preventing unplanned pregnancies. Yet many anti-choicers are opposed to it, not just for teens, but for adults, too, even married ones. This tells me that the other posters are right. For some, outlawing abortion IS about controlling women's sexuality.
Second, the anti-choicers who believe abortion is murd er will not give up. I would love to see more emotional and financial support for women who do not want abortions, while keeping it legal for those who choose not to have one, but I think that might backfire. I suspect that the anti-choicers will accept that support, then keep pushing their agenda of outlawing abortion, using the argument that lack resources support is no longer an issue, and and then put up more barriers to for those who do chose to abort.
While I would be very happy to find common ground in reducing the number of abortions, I'm not sure that we are going to find it while underneath the two sides have mutually exclusive agendas.
Doug Kmiek is one of those I admire within the Christian faith(I'm an agnostic). His website, Matthew 25 was an eye opener during the campaign. I introduced it to my brother who is a Christian and I specifically pointed out the pro-life section of the website to give him a different point of view that he held prior to the elections
I, too, am an agnostic. My problem with organized religion pushes specific agendas and blind belief without any thought by the congregation. I also find these types of organizations are intolerant of any ideas that are different. In my 50+ years I still have not seen my opinion change.
The right wing pro-life agenda has always been full of inconsistencies. It gives lip service in support of life in the womb and lip service for certain prolonged phases of terminal illnesses. In between the womb and terminal illness, which covers the vast majority of life, the right couldn't care less about most people. The logical answer to both problems (life in the womb and at the end) is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to not use artificial means to prolong a miserable death. But, the right opposes all logical solutions to these problems. In summary, does it make any sense to be pro-life for the first 9 months, oblivious to life for the next 70 years, and pro-life in the terminal months only if it can be stretched out by artificial means? In addition, no money is ever offered by pro-lifers to their subjects to back up their zeal with substance. STRANGE.
I don't know where you get your false info, but I personally know many pro-life organizations that will help women in trouble, regardlless of her situation. If she needs help, they're there. I'm sorry nobody was for you
'Help a woman in trouble', as long as she doesn't terminate her pregnancy And they could care less about 'the situation.
Some of those organizations are nothing but adoption mills, with the goal of getting that baby into the hands of a Good Christian Family.
Your comments are a regurgitation of a boilerplate position that is tired and almost meaningless. Try to reapproach things in the spirit of cooperation.
Empire551
Huh? Why don't you just answer the question?
The Catholic Church, which is frequently noted for its anti-abortion position, also includes opposition to capital punishment and war in its definition of 'Pro-Life.
I believe that the issue is too complex for easy solutions. Regardless of one's moral position on abortion (and I believe abortion is a moral tragedy), the only proper moral and ethical decision is that it be legal. It is simply too difficult a choice for a church or the government to demand the right to make it for the woman in a position where she believes it may be the least onerous option.
What is necessary for real progress on the abortion issue is for all sides to agree that there is no legitimate or convincing argument against the morality of BIRTH CONTROL that is not based on religious dogmas not shared equally by all churches. Education, available birth control, and economic and social justice will do more to solve the problem of abortion than ridiculous, church-approved abstinence-only programs and bans on procedures only performed when absolutely medically necessary.
You say abortion "is a moral tradgedy". Please give me a logical reason why if all that is being aborted is a clump of cells. It should be no different from an appendectomy or a hair cut. There seems to be a large inconsistency in the argument that no loss of life is involved in abortion and the serious thought pro-choice women need to wade through before deciding whats best. If your answer is its just a subject women become overly emotional about...li
This is what Obama was talking about, and why his constant refrain of seeking commonalities rather than disagreements is so powerful. As the world spins out of control over the next couple of years, we have a choice. We can fight all the old fights the way Hillary wanted to, or we can say, for get those fights, forget that I'm mad at you and you are mad at me and lets start from today and try and form consensus on those things we can. I also think you have to thank GWB for being such a complete tool. The Pro life movement got almost everything they wanted, abstinence only education, gag rules, faith based initiative with tax payer money. The result, unwanted pregs and teen pregs skyrocketed. At this point, Obama, who has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he isn't anti church, anti religion, can get out of the way and let the organizations themselves broker the deals. He can stand back and act as a ref, and a hammer as he will probably get 5 supreme court appointments in 8 years. This is a good thing. This is what victory looks like folks. We gave money and we volunteered and we fought back all the scurrilous attacks in order to win a consensus. Lets use it for good.
J
Pardon me, but I believe tax payer money has paid for more abortions than anything else, and no, we didn't get what we wanted. PP still has the upper hand and can do anything they want with tax payers money. Pro-life organizations, on the other hand, are very limited
you sound like so many on this site, afraidforthis country, and in my party these days. Entrenched thinking and refusal to budge even if it means trying to find real solutions to everyday problems and putting the ugly rhetoric away in the name of common good.
It seems after we won the election my side, the left, has decided that it's time to act and talk just the rightwing fanatics that we railed against.
Sorry, but, the majority is sick and tired of it.
Sick of the culture wars and the immaturity that fosters it and keeps alive.
It's time for both side to grow the hell up and start acting like responsible adults and find solutions and common ground and leave the temper tantrums at home.
Umm, no.
Abortions cost several hundred dollars. Raising a child according to the Associated Press study, is $250,000 on average. A lot more tax money goes to costs of child care after birth, mind you.
As for PP having the upper hand, no. PP (an American niche organisation) vs. the Catholic Church, a worldwide, well-moneyed organisation marketing its invisible product and institutionalised sexism for eons, is a no-match.
If you are so bloody concerned about where taxpayer money goes, look no further than wars/private war contractors, bailing out private banks, and the Office of Faith-based Initiatives. Who knew God needed so much monetary help from humans?
It is well past time to get this issue out of American politics. It is not an election issue at all in the UK, Australia, or other civilised countries--only in countries where women are to be kept down at all costs with machismo policies like in the US, El Salvador and Afghanistan.
I still think anyone who is anti-abortion should be sterilized to protect society.
(But if we really need to compromise -- I'll give up on forcible sterilization if they give up on trying to influence what other people do with their bodies.)
"Remember 9/11 -- Stamp Out Religous Fanatics!"
It's "anti-abortion," not "pro-life.
No reason to use their lying propaganda.
The slogans and buzzwords firm up the conflict. Best to use complete sentences designed to probe for a solution. Forget all the pro and anti hogwash. They are coined by those who prefer to keep the argument going for eternity.
Anti abortion is not really accurate since everyone is supposedly against abortion. I don't believe that is true, you seem like you may have the courage to actually say you have no problem with abortion. Good for you.
It seems to be the PC thing for everyone, on both sides, to say that they are against abortion.
Personally, I don't believe that early-term abortion is morally wrong, but I think it's better for to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place, because abortion is, essentially, minor surgery, and does carry risks for woman's health.
I think their position is pro-female-slavery, or anti-nonpr
Who on this earth isn't "pro-life?" It's a ridiculous term.
But it makes them sound moral and righteous. Then they feel it's their God-given "right" to tell everybody else to believe like them.
Anti-Choice would be the right word.
It isn't "anti abortion" and it isn't "pro life". It's pro force. The group of people, including those in the Catholic Church have the misguided notion they have the right to force their way of doing things on women. It's that simple.
What has always fascinated me is that nearly everyone who's opposed to a woman having the right to choose what happens to her body, claims to be Christian. They're the very same people who believe that God gave us all the freedom to choose, yet they think they have the right to take that God-given freedom away from a select group of humans - women.
They are hypocrites, pure and simple.
Potions
Somebody needs to say it. Your opinion is just plain stupid besides being untrue. You confuse "freedom" with the "right" to do something. Abortion is evil. You have the freedom to do evil but the Church has the responsibility to call it what it is. You talk about "force" as something thats always bad. A stupid statement. The police use force to protect the public. Get the idea?
I think the pro-life side just doesn't want to be forced to spend tax dollars to pay for abortion services. Truth be told if life does begin at conception then strictly speaking it is murder to destroy an embryo. I dont think its going to be treated as if you killed someone who is out of the womb due to mitigating factors that go to intent. Society should be on the side that protects life and not in the business of encouraging abortions by paying for them.
A fairly neat way for people to resolve conflicts in this nation is to "follow the founders". Our government was designed to compromise in order to function. When diverse views polarize, progress stops and endless bickering follows without any resolution of the conflict. It is a breath of fresh air to see the opposite sides of this question approach each other to settle on what works for both sides. Neither will ever have its way without compromise. Otherwise, with respect to most all of the right and left ideologies, we might as well change the name of our political parties to Shia and Sunni and start bombing each other's churches. While we are at it, maybe we could show Sunnis and Shias how compromise works in a democracy with this golden opportunity to resolve what people do about pregnancy. Education, education, education, is at the root of the solution.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
