Unearthing Common Ground: Why Reducing Abortions is Not the Goal

There comes a moment in justice movements when society edges forward just enough that once-heated controversies - suffrage, racial integration, interracial marriage - become part of the cultural fabric. Sexism and racism may continue to simmer, but the overall movement can declare victory and move on.

On Election Day, the reproductive justice movement may have achieved its moment. The election of a pro-choice President-elect puts Roe v. Wade back on firm ground. Ballot measures that would have restricted reproductive health rights in three states were all soundly defeated. The Mexico City Policy, which blocks U.S. aid to international family planning organization that counsel women on abortion, is expected to be quickly reversed. A post-election survey by Faith in Public Life showed that a clear majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal.

The fiercest opponents of women's reproductive rights are not giving up. But over the past few weeks, we have heard a commitment from several Catholic and evangelical Protestant leaders to finding a new common ground on abortion. David Gushee, writing for the Associated Baptist Press, notes that, "Over 80 percent of white evangelicals and Catholics believe elected officials should work together to find ways to reduce abortions by helping prevent unwanted pregnancies, expanding adoption and increasing economic support for women who want to carry their pregnancies to term."

I welcome the support and collaboration of Professor Gushee, as well as Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals and others, who are calling to "reduce the number of abortions." But I am puzzled that their goal is to reduce abortions rather than the unintended pregnancies that force women and families to consider abortion in the first place.

The call to reduce unintended pregnancies is the right one. What we must focus on now are the means to do so - specifically, comprehensive sexuality education (not abstinence-only) and universal access to contraceptive services, including emergency contraception.

The advocates for a new common ground correctly note the correlation between poverty and abortion rates. But they fail to mention how poverty first contributes to unintended pregnancies. Adoption alternatives and economic support for poor pregnant women are important - but these strategies do not address the fact that poor women are at least five times more likely than other women to become pregnant unintentionally.

Here's what the Guttmacher Institute's Susan Cohen wrote the last time an abortion reduction strategy was floated by Democrats for Life in 2006: "While it is theoretically possible that increased social supports for pregnant women and even more 'adoption-positive' problem-pregnancy counseling could have some impact, neither can hope to approach the real reductions in the abortion rate that could be achieved by preventing unintended pregnancy in the first place." (Emphasis added.)

This is the real moral challenge we face. I've worked with thousands of women facing unintended pregnancies. They aren't looking for "abortion on demand"; with only a handful of exceptions, these women sat with me (often with their partners or parents beside them), and they wept as they tried to decide what was best to do. Often they did have financial concerns - not so much about how they would pay for prenatal care or infant care, but about how they could afford to raise a child (or in many cases, another child) to adulthood. Too often, they did not have partners who they wanted to spend their lives with or who could support them. As one of my colleagues has said, such women have "too much responsibility already and too few resources, both personal and economic."

So here is my suggestion for common ground. Let's stop talking about reducing the number of abortions as a goal in itself. Such talk obscures what should be the principal objective - reducing unintended pregnancies - and leads to counterproductive strategies that would place restrictions on abortion access. It also misrepresents the platform that President-elect Obama ran on, which affirmed a woman's right to choose and opposed "any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." The Democratic platform called for "access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives," as well as economic support for pregnant women.

Let's start talking about reducing unintended pregnancies. This is not only the better public health position, it is a faithful and moral one as well. Five years ago, the Religious Institute published an Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision, which includes this eloquent and irrefutable statement: "The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly."

Surely this is the common ground where all of us - the new Administration, the new Congress, even my Catholic and evangelical colleagues - can proudly stand.

Comments

[Vickster]

In my opinion, we need to stop emphasizing women and girls when discussing abortion, birth control and reducing unintended pregnancies. It's time to start using sex education to drive home the point that boys are fertile too and should act accordingly. In other words, fellows, if you don't want to wear a condom then you shouldn't be having sex.

It seems to me that there would be fewer unintended pregnancies if both parties covered their asses (pun intended).

[Libbydoe]

I agree with your assessment. If, in fact, those who oppose abortion really want to see a decrease or elimination of the need for the procedure, they should champion sex education and the availabilty of contraception. Unfortunately, something else is going on. I suspect, that for some of these people, it is the way in which one gets pregnant that is their problem..

[OtayPanky]

What makes anyone think this is an either/or debate?

Regardless of your personal morals, widespread abortion is not a measure of societal health, nor is widespread thoughtless pregnancy, nor is lack of aftercare for infants.

As a society, shouldn't our public health goals include reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies AND reducing the number of abortions AND reducing the lack of good parenting environments for children after they are born.

Futhermore - even if you don't believe that killing an in utero fetus is equivalent to murdering an ex utero newborn (and that is my own position), we need to acknowledge that abortion is an act that has serious psychological conseqences, often long lasting, particularly for the mother.

I'm not saying that is fair or just - but it is a fact, nonetheless. It has to do with the fact that the mother is, biologically, the steward of this new life, and develops (most of the time) a profound attachment to the unborn child she carries.

So by all means, let's advocate and do what's doable to reduce unwanted pregnancy. And at the same time, let's advocate and do what's doable so that pregnant women and their partners have more options if they're not comfortable with the idea of aborting a new life.

[growlwoman]

"We need to acknowledge that abortion is an act that has serious psychological conseqences, often long lasting, particularly for the mother. I'm not saying that is fair or just - but it is a fact, nonetheless."

A fact? Where did you get this "fact" from, the Heritage Foundation? To say that abortion has serious psychological consequences is just anti-choice propoganda used to scare women from terminating her pregnancy.

After working in an abortion clinic, I can tell you from experience that many women felt no attachment to her fetus and felt sheer relief after the procedure was over. Each woman's story and situation are unique, so let's protect her capacity and agency in making the best decision for herself.

[OtayPanky]

I do grief support work, and it's a fact is that many women grieve the loss of an unborn child very deeply. No need to be a right winger (and I'm certainly not) to acknowledge that.

Denial doesn't help anyone deal with what is a real problem...on many levels...for many people.

[sunnybunny]

You're wrong about that. Many women feel regret and serious guilt over abortions they had years ago.I am one of them (and I know of several women I am close to that feel the same way).As my husband says-We can't go back and undo it though, so we might as well leave it behind us. Sometimes though, I still wake up crying. Sure at the time I felt relief. We were desperate and couldn't imagine bringing another child into the life that we were in. But financial situations and dysfunctional lifestyles can change and a permanent solution that seemed so responsible at the time may now just seem sad and empty. I am not anti-choice, but I do wish someone had talked me out of the choice I made.Between the pro lifers coming off as cruel fanatics and the people trying to help you by "protecting" you from them, it's pretty easy to make a bad decision when you are in a desperate situation.

[prolifedem2]

While pregnancy prevention is a worthwhile goal, reducing the abortion rate is equally, if not more, important. According to the Guttmacher Institute, over 50 percent of women who sought an abortion were using contraception in the month they became pregnant. Contraceptives fail. Also, according to the Guttmacher Institute, only 7 percent of the population is not using contraception. The rest are infertile, pregnant, trying to get pregnant or using contraception. Title X and Medicaid provide funding for contraceptives. There is no money dedicated to helping a pregnant women who does not want an abortion.

The new and real focus should be on providing more support to women once they become pregnant and dramatically reducing the abortion rate in America. Every and all options must be pursued.

[berkeleygirl1962]

"The new and real focus should be on providing more support to women once they become pregnant and dramatically reducing the abortion rate in America..."

...as well as further support AFTER WOMEN GIVE BIRTH, which means universal health care, rescinding the Clinton welfare reform requirements which force women with kids under five to work, an expansion of public housing, and universal preschool.

[cbowers18]

Hmm, let me see; the answer to unwelcome / unsustainable childbirth is to provide more abortions? Isn't that like saying that the answer to unwelcome floods is to provide more sandbags?

Just as the real answer to floods is to prevent them in the first place (by responsible land and river management, not the Corps of Engineers approach), so the real answer to unintended pregnancies is to prevent them in the first place. Comprehensive sex education, availability of contraception, de-stigmatizing (and in some cases de-criminalizing) the work of medical information providers, and other issue-specific acts-- yes; but also larger systemic changes, such as reducing poverty, providing universally-available and affordable health care, useful education for all . . . the list goes on.

An immense task, and not an easy one. But of more lasting use and impact than a pile of sandbags.

[berkeleygirl1962]

You're absolutely right--reducing the number of unintended pregnancies using PROVEN methods (i.e., NOT abstinence-only education but rather comprehensive education, information, and access to birth control) should be a path most of us can agree on, while leaving the anti-fornication/anti-contraception folks exposed as the irrelevant extremists they are. Thanks for re-framing the issue.

[WyrdSister]

Bottom line is controling women. Period. I agree with Downing that the religious groups want to put themselves into the position of Sex Police or rather the Sex Administration. They want to be the ones who tell others how to live their sex lives. And as far as the Catholic Church goes, they better not chime in too loudly as they are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to sex.

We need comprehensive sex ed SO BADLY! Where I work I see WAY TOO MANY 15 yr olds having babies. They have absolutely NO information to start with which makes every decision after disasterous. I cannot hand out enough condoms. Frankly, I dont think they use any birth control what-so-ever and then are surprised and amazed when they end up pregnant. After they find themselves pregnant, they do not get information on ALL of their options. I seriously do not know what is wrong with the parents of these poor girls.

[hicwat]

Quotes from this article:
"The call ... is the right one."
"... what should be the principal objective ..."
"... the better public health position ..."

These are all moral pronouncements ("right", "should", "better"). By what authority are they made? Kmiec et al. can agree to "reduce the number of abortions" because they believe that abortion is evil -- but how could they possibly agree with the moral pronouncements above?

[Bananafarm]

Because they are a path to their moral pronouncements that will actually work better than just pretending like women only have abortions because they are selfish harlots?

[WyrdSister]

You're right. There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong", "good' or "bad", it's just your judgement of a thing.
It is what it is, so let's deal with the REALITY of it rather than ideology. The FACT is, people have sex; teens have sex. Let's get them ALL of the medical information they need to lmake informed and thoughtful decisions regarding their bodies and their lives.

[Downing]

It seems that those who oppose abortion and contraception are contradicting themselves. They are instead the anti-fornication police.