The Call for Common Ground on Abortion

Some historic moments are short and sweet. That was the case last Friday with a call the White House organized on common ground in the abortion conflict. In a never before attempted event, the Obama administration merged dozens of leaders from the pro-choice and pro-life movements onto one conference call line and, wisely, muted us.

The team to which Obama has assigned the task of shaping a civil discussion and exploring common cause within the abortion conflict enthusiastically laid out a profoundly sensible plan forward. Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, kicked off the call explaining that their goal is not to change minds on the dug-in issue of abortion. Rather, she explained, the intent is to focus on the areas in which, theoretically, both sides share a common interest. And there are many: preventing unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reducing the need for abortion, strengthening supports for struggling families with wanted pregnancies, making adoption an option as accessible as any other, and saving lives by improving maternal and child health.

Barnes introduced the team that will help recruit people to the common cause: Tina Tchen, Executive Director of the Council on Women and Girls (she is also Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House) and Rev. Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Tchen explained that they would take the next few months to meet with leaders on both sides to discuss various common ground proposals and to gather new ones. They will focus on projects that can be funded in the 2011 budget, as well as legislation and grassroots efforts that could be duplicated elsewhere.

The 15-minute call concluded with Barnes explaining that the President believes in common ground. This is the post-rant and, supposedly, post-culture war president. Common ground has become his way of framing his approach, a fundamentally optimistic view that if people of goodwill come together they can find ways to work together. Only the future will tell if that will be. But clearly the eminently rational Obama is betting that if reasonable people use reason they can get somewhere.

They promised to be in touch. The nasal-y conference call operator voice came on to signify the end of the call and the culture warriors retreated to their bunkers, awaiting further contact.

Certainly the surveys show that American public pines for the kind of common ground effort Obama seems to believe in. And in the brief but pointed call the No Drama Obama team seems to have figured out where to begin. It's put off limits the dogfight issues, like restrictions on abortion. The Obama team has chosen to narrow the scope. It's a call-your-bluff moment. You say you want to reduce unintended pregnancy? Well, then here's a common sense way to move forward. There has historically been deep resistance on the right to many of the approaches Obama favors, and even some in the pro-choice community, which has largely supported the Obama agenda, appear to wonder about the wisdom of making common cause with groups seen as part of the problem. The Obama team must have wondered whether it will find willing partners for what's meant to be a shared journey. Luckily, for the moment, the mute button was pushed.

And that gave the Obama team a chance to lay out its focused definition of common ground, a vague term which had understandably been open to wide interpretation. Last Friday, in its signature all-business style, the Obama team came to the call with a meaningful, common sense agenda. They're not planning to solve the abortion conflict, and they're not pretending to be miracle workers. But they are hoping to find that, with some good will, there are the solutions to such fundamental issues as unintended pregnancy about which both sides ought not to disagree.

This post originally appeared on birthcontrolwatch.org

Comments

[newshawk14]

This is just one small area, but one that I think both sides could agree upon. Rubella (German
measles) is pretty much of a disaster if it occurs in the first trimester. There is a vaccine, but I have
the impression that it's not totally free of side effects. Improving the vaccine and doing a better job
in promoting its use could reduce the number of abortions. I certainly have no objection to a
program like this.

[EmberOfTruth]

Abortion isn't the problem. Abortion is a solution. Unwanted pregnancy is the problem. It would seem to me that the Pro-Life movement would best reach their stated goal of eliminating abortion by developing more effective alternative solutions.

[Gidster]

Or indeed allowing the teaching a proper sex education course complete with contraception options...­..

[EmberOfTruth]

Which is what I was eluding to. It would seem to me that if someone is serious about eliminating abortion, they would open to, and vocal advocates of, all means to prevent the need for abortions. Which would include vigorous sex education for our youth, unrestricted access to birth control. Investing in research to develop safer, and more effective means of long term contraception.

If someone claims to be anti-abortion, yet is also against taking any action that would drastically reduce the need for abortions, I simply assume that the person is just using abortion as a vehicle to promote their own personal social/religious agenda.

[hopefullee]

As a pro-choice woman, I love the idea of finding common ground and reducing the level of contention between the two sides. The problem is: how can you have a constructive dialog about common ground we can't trust the "pro-lifers" to engage honestly because they have such a long track record of using lies to prevent women from having abortions?

Just to be clear, I don't think any woman should be forced to have an abortion because of economic hardship. I would be thrilled to see more services and support for women freely choose to carry unplanned pregnancies to term, especially if they want to keep the baby. However, given "pro-life" crowd's history of dishonesty, what I fully expect the from them is to support the expansion of those services, and then to and continue to try to outlaw abortion on the grounds that women now have no "excuse" to abort.

[SonofLiberty1]

I'm not sure about what you term or how you term "dishonestly" period.

I do know that many folks, like myself, realize that the whole problem has been so

"Politicized" that no movement or very little movement, along the old lines of battle, will ever happen.

That both sides, or some portions of both sides, realize that abortion is not a good answer is cause to rejoice.

I'm willing to even bet that we have come so far that many folks are realizing that it's gotten

"out of hand"

Our new President seems to agree with that concept.

Maybe it's time to accept responsibility for our actions...­.

Both women & MEN?

[hopefullee]

If you don't know what I mean by "dishonesty", I'll post a list. (Although, looking down the thread to post repeating the LIE that without Bush's "conscience clause", doctors would be forced to perform abortions against their will is a good place to start. And, BTW, who do you think started that rumor in the first place?)

I'm not sure what you mean by "out of hand" but here's a fact the "pro-lifers" won't tell you: outlawing abortion doesn't stop it. It only drives it underground. The big difference is that if it's illegal, the rich will get safe abortions elsewhere, and the poor will do it with coat hangers and back room butchers, just like before Roe, because for some women, abortion IS the right choice. So excuse me if I don't share the fantasy that overturning Roe would lead to anything other than women dying AGAIN because they were denied the right control their own bodies.

"Maybe it's time to accept responsibility for our actions...­. Both women & MEN?"

You seem to confuse "responsibility" with "punishment". And if you think that forced pregnancy could ever be anything but punishment, you are sadly mistaken.
I'm not sure why you wrote "MEN" in caps, unless you are trying to say that if men pay child support, then forced pregnancy would be a less horrific concept?

As far as the President, he's made it very clear that opposed to overturning abortion rights. Why would you think otherwise?

[Jill Stanek]

Cristina, the basic questions: Why care about reducing the need for abortion? What's wrong with it?

[Cristina Page - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi Jill, nice to hear from you. I think it's the same reason to reduce teen parenthood and to reduce the need to place a child for adoption. If any woman in one of those circumstances were to be asked, "if you could go back in time and avoid being in this predicament, would you?" nearly all would say yes. I think we should reduce teen parenthood and the need for adoption too. These are each often tremendously difficult choices that ideally no woman should have to face. Adoption, abortion, and parenthood are all the results of unintended pregnancy and I believe women should have access to each of these options legally and safely. Its unintended pregnancy that's the real problem here. That's what we need to work to avoid.

Sorry to not give you the "gotcha" moment you were looking for. For Huffpo readers, Jill Stanek is a leader in the anti-abortion movement and probably the most popular blogger on that side of the issue. Jill, here are my questions for you: Why are you opposed to preventing unintended pregnancy and access to contraception as one vehicle toward that end? Why do you pursue the outlawing of abortion even though it has failed to reduce abortion rates wherever it's been tried? Why not institute the policies that result in the lowest abortion rates on earth? So what if it's the most pro-choice countries that have the lowest abortion rates, aren't "pro-life" results what you're after?

[Jill Stanek]

Christina, seriously, thanks for the kind words on my credentials.

But you didn't answer me. You may consider my question a "gotcha," but it's foundational. How can we devise solutions when we haven't defined the problem? What exactly is the problem with abortion? Why is it "a tremendously difficult choice[ ] that ideally no woman should have to face"?

What is wrong with abortion? Is it or is it not morally neutral or even superior, as new Cambridge Episcopal Divinity School pro-abort President Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale tagged it - "a blessing" and "holy work"?

valkyrie607, why exactly does "abortion suck[ ]"?

[Randian]

Christina,
The person looking for gotcha are those who have moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The Obama administration has little regard for the pro-life movement as demonstrated by the nominations to the Justice Dept. In classic Obama style, invite the opposition party to lunch, have the insider media give it 6 pm coverage with the big three and then when you drop the hammer and they complain they are obstructionists. This is not about reducing the number of abortions, it is about living up to the promises made to NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the pro-aborts who contributed so much to his campaign. Their goal is not to rest until every 8 yo has the right to birth control and if that doesn't work abortion without parental consent. Only then will all women be free of the risk of consequences for they sexual freedom. The male sex will have no worries about unintended consequences.

[llisa]

Many on the right object to some of the WAYS the need for abortions can be reduced: teaching young people how to prevent pregnancy by educating them about birth control, allowing the use of the "morning after pill". Abstinence only programs have been proven not to work, but some on the right will not even consider anything else.

I feel this is a very good start. I wish them well.

[valkyrie607]

Because getting pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant sucks. And getting an abortion sucks.

Outlawing it and possibly prosecuting women for making that choice would make it suck even worse. It'd be like throwing gasoline on a fire.

Harm prevention and harm reduction are the most important things here.

Was this some sort of trick question?

[MadeInAmerica]

There will be more abortions year after year unless unwanted pregnancy rates are reduced and unfortunately, that will not happen magically.
Good job Obama Administration for taking the adult approach to this problem. It seems to me that a President with a brain is a good thing.
Thankyoujesus!

[sdskelton03]

Nobody who is pro-choice is going to answer your question. The reason abortion sucks is that (as everyone on all sides knows) it is the killing of an innocent human being for no other reason than that human being in inconvenient.

They don't want to say that.

[Gidster]

Most elective abortions are conducted in the first trimester, not really a person yet.

We would all love to see the reduction of elective abortions.

Through education that realistically covers all preventative options.

Or society could drop the teen mother stigma and support them instead of ostracizing them when they are most vulnerable.

[mommadona]

Simple solutions abound.

#1 - Put responsibility and accountability where it belongs - on the MALE.

Majority of teen pregnancies are the result of relationships with ADULT MALES.

#2 - full access to birth control - for EVERYONE. Where IS that male birth control pill?

#3 - stop the stupid 'sin' talk. It doesn't work and it doesn't go anywhere near to solving a very human problem.

#4 - grow up - I'm talking to the business/a­dvertiseme­nt world. you've used sex as a product pusher for waaaaaaayyyyy too long. Grow up.

[llisa]

Yes, Momma!

[Montreaux1991]

You said it, sister. I've been on birth control for 10 years, so when that male pill comes out, I'm making sure my partner gets the first prescription.

[Maria Thomas]

little earthquakes, montreaux1991?

[SonofLiberty1]

As a guy I can't help but say the same thing and I have no idea of exactly why more women don't rally behind the idea....

I'm not a "bad boy" but I have to wonder, what is it that attracts women to the idiot boyfriends that have a good time with them and leave them...hig­h, dry, and pregnant?

I mean , really..so many young women have been down that road and made the same mistake...­why can't we learn from others?

And as to the old anti-abortion guard, well they don't like the idea that a new group is in town now looking for a common cause...

And as a practicing Catholic, I can only say that possibly The Holy Spirit is working in a different way here....

Trying to prevent abortions from having to occur is a good thing...I wouldn't want my body violated like that.

[MsBlack8]

Thank you for telling the truth. Historically, women were (and in some places still are) considered property and this abortion debate still shows that that sentiment is still there. Pro-lifers feel they have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. But they say nothing about the "men" who impregnate women and fail to take care of their own children.

The only reason having a baby outside of marriage was considered a "sin" is because it's a violation of a man's property rights over a woman. A father can't barter his daughter away if she's not a virgin and a husband has to make sure his wife is only having his children. Women need to keep fighting to make sure our lives aren't constricted by these caveman morals.

Abortion, whether one thinks it's right or wrong, is each woman's personal choice.

[Sparhawk]

How can there be common ground? It's a simple question really.

Do you believe Abortion is murder yes or no? Depending on where come down on this question will define where you stand in relation to 'whether a woman has a choice or not, Gov't has jurisdiction or not, etc etc etc.

[bimplebean]

If you reduce unintended pregnancies the whole issue of abortion fails to even come up. Separate the two problems, solve the one and the other goes away.

But no, you have to continue to bang your drum so loudly that no one -- yourself included -- can think. Did you not even READ the article?

[michiganfan]

Which is why Obama explicitly put that topic off the table.

[llisa]

The common ground is in the agreement that the NEED for abortion has to be reduced. Both sides agree that less abortion is a GOOD thing. Now they need to work on how to make that happen.

[SonofLiberty1]

You have to be pragmatic.­....

So one way doesn't work how about another way?

Of course,I always say PRAY....

God himself knows, it's we mere humans who think we know.

Finding common ground is not a bad idea,and perhaps The Holy Spirit will or is now using it.

[Amerigucci]

Cristina, there is no reasonable common ground on abortion. Women are either entitled to reproductive choice, dominion over their bodies, or they aren't. Those who are anti-abortion do not recognize a woman's right to dominion over her own body. They will not stop until abortion is outlawed.

We've been there, we've done that. it doesn't work and never will.

The same people who refuse to recognize this right of dominion over one's own body pay lip service to freedom and privacy when it's subjects like gun ownership, but when it's abortion or visiting Cuba or getting on an airplane without 20 forms of ID and nude x-rays, they're regular fascists.

[historymatters]

I think you're right about the hard-liner anti-choice folks.

I also think that the proposed legislation, as described above, is a good idea.

[SonofLiberty1]

Perhaps, just perhaps, The Holy Spirit knows better than you?
Seems to me that if you personally think that abortion is the taking of a human life then you would do anything you could to save lives?

[Amerigucci]

How about in this "common ground" where making adoption an option as accessible as any other , how about making abortion as accessible an option as any other?

In the last dozen years or so, anti-abortion groups have made it so that there are very few facilities providing abortions for women with little or no means. If you're a poor woman and the closest facility is out of state or hundreds of miles away, then abortion is not a realistic option for you.

[historymatters]

excellent point.

[progressivepam]

Of course abortion is a realistic option. It has been for centuries, no,make that millenia. Coat hangers, back alleys, it's all there and available. Reducing legal abortions promotes unsafe ILLEGAL abortions. Pretty damned simple.

[Gidster]

The matter becomes one of which life is more important, a Zygote/ Embro /Fetus who may never come to term, or the mother's?

The ban on abortion will send those that need one to "Back Alleys" putting their lives at risk, so some religious folk can feel better about a cell clusters removal.

[hopefullee]

Amerigucci brings up a good point:

"If you're a poor woman and the closest facility is out of state or hundreds of miles away..."

This isn't just an issue about women's reproductive rights. It's a class issue.

Wealthier women have almost always had access to safe abortions by doctors performing so-called D&Cs (or these days traveling to get one.). If abortion were outlawed again, wealthy women would still have the option of going out of state or out of the country get a safe abortion. It's only poor women who would be faced with choices of life-threatening DIY abortions or adoption, with the latter option effectively turning poor women into unwilling breeders for the rich.

[marxmarv]

It's always been a class issue. The rich will always have safe abortion on demand.

[roger3816]

If you don't agree with abortions, don' have one. I really sick of people claiming we need to find common ground with loons.

[Melissa]

People are loons because they don't believe in abortions?

[TeeDub]

No, people are loons when they want to force all women to gestate. Roger3816 is right: if a person doesn't like abortion, that person doesn't have to have one. That person needs to keep their nose out of women's uterus'.

[ssg13565]

If we focus on the parts that reasonable people can agree on, perhaps it will make a nice contrast to the ones that want to focus on the other parts of the issue.

[Clavis]

Now all we need to do is marginalize the unreasonable ones, who use manipulation, deceit and hatemongering to get their dirty work done. Easier said than done...

[SonofLiberty1]

But who is unreasonable huh?

[billkarwin]

Hallelujah. It's about time the country's leaders focus on some aspect of the abortion rights issue OTHER than the most divisive parts of it.

[enochsmoky]

How much common ground can there be when Obama wants to lift the conscience clause and force medical personnel and hospitals to perform abortions? There should be common ground to outlaw partial birth abortion which is never medically needed, but Obama and abortion rights zealots are on the wrong side of this ban which 90% of Americans support. If Obama relents on these two issues I would agree that he is trying to find common ground on abortion.

[Cristina Page - Huffpost Blogger]

Sadly, so much of the division is based on misinformation. There are already 3 laws, spanning 30 years on the books, that protect those who do not wish to take part in abortion services. No one today, or for the last 30 years, has been "forced" to provide abortion services.T­he HHS regulations that Obama is undoing allowed healthcare workers to refuse to provide any service, they didn't have to alert their employer or patients to their objection and couldn't be fired because of it. Even Bush's own EEOC came out against the regulation because it was so broad and would cause havoc in healthcare and law. Here's more information about it in the link below but rest assured no one is being forced to provide abortion services --anyway, why would we subject women to such shoddy care?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/bush-our-ex-boyfriend_b_158828.html

[TeeDub]

Said much more eloquently and respectfully than I could ever hope to. Christina, I very much enjoy your articles here and at RHRealityCheck.org.

[historymatters]

thanks for clarifying the issues surrounding the HHS regulations. Far too few people understand what a huge imposition on their personal lives would've been allowed under the "conscience" rule.

[alsm9]

I don't understand this "forced" issue. Why are these people working in a field that provides that service in the first place? If someone is against abortion maybe they shouldn't work in gynaecology. It's pretty simple. And if you do? It comes with the job, end of...and NO ONE should be able to just refuse to do their job and if they do they should be fired. If you don't like it don't work there. You'd never hear of a heart surgeon who doesn't believe in blood transfusions.

There is no common ground when it comes to human rights. Not civil rights, not gay rights and not women's rights.

[stop the politics]

If what you say is true, then explain to me the stories about pharmacists being forced to sell the morning after pill. If their stories are true, those pharmacists are being forced to perform abortions, unless they want to quit their jobs.

[Cristina Page - Huffpost Blogger]

also, the so-called "partial ban abortion" procedure is already outlawed (see link below for more info). Looks like your common ground prays have been answered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800710.html

[madatnewsmedia]

Well, it's obvious that you don't want to find common ground. The Pro-lifers are not all wrong and the Pro-Choicers are not all wrong. They can find common ground, but it will take a little work.

[MrsGreebers]

It's also obvious that enochsmoky is either ignorant of the conscience clause thing, or is being deceitful. Doctors and nurses have the right to opt out of abortion procedures, before and during the conscience clause being in force, and will continue to. What we're talking about is some random clerk refusing to ring up your morning after pill, your birth control pill, and ANY OTHER PROBLEM that ANYONE WORKING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT may have with ANYTHING you might be trying to do or buy. Guys, better be wearing a wedding ring when you fill that viagra prescription. Because while we all know this is about vetoing a woman's abortion or birth control decisions, the clause Obama wants to change makes it theoretically possible to have to defend your viagra purchase. You could even have some "nature" fan refuse to ring up your wrinkle cream.

[Amerigucci]

Where do you get that dilation and extraction or D&X (or what you call partial birth abortion) is "never medically needed"?

JAMA sets the record straight--It is a medically necessary procedure for some-
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/21/2195

[SonofLiberty1]

What about personal responsibility?