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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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[ ]"?
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.
I feel this is a very good start. I wish them well.
#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.
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.
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?
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.
I also think that the proposed legislation, as described above, is a good idea.
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?
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.
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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/bush-our-ex-boyfriend_b_158828.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800710.html