Welcome to Common Ground

In so many ways, the election of President Obama is viewed through a lens of its healing potential. No, racism did not end with the election of our first President of Color, but many people are looking at themselves and their beliefs about race differently. No, his election did not automatically restore America as a beacon of hope around the world after years of steady decline, but our global neighbors are looking at us in a new light.

President Obama is asking Americans to seek common ground on one of the most controversial issues of our time, abortion. Knowing we don't all agree, Obama asks that we agree to disagree, with civility, recognizing the dangerous place the extremism surrounding this debate has taken our politics.

For the entire political life of many people around President Obama's age, the politics of abortion has seemed intractable, uncompromising, bitterly divisive. The first political race I watched closely, at 11, ended with Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas using pictures of aborted fetuses on door hangers in heavily Catholic precincts to defeat Dr. Bill Roy, an obstetrician, Congressman and Catholic himself. Dole won re-election by a handful of votes in 1974 on the politics of insinuation.

Thirty-five years later, Dr. George Tiller was assassinated in his Lutheran church because he performed legal abortions, also in Kansas, the site of many far-right battles in those intervening years. Tiller is the latest victim of extremism on the far-right that has its roots in the political rhetoric started in that first post-Roe election.

Many people on the right distance themselves from anything having to do with clinic violence, but still have their picture taken with politicians whose rhetoric foments it.

So why is RH Reality Check, a site founded and dedicated to promoting progressive ideas about the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health, even engaging this discussion about common ground?

We believe that by bringing voices from the center and right of center to mix with the leading voices of the progressive movement promoting sexual and reproductive health, our online community can play a small role in allowing a new way to look at these issues to emerge. It won't be easy.

We are not defining, or buying into, anyone's definition of common ground. We are facilitating a discussion that we hope will allow all people to think differently about sexual and reproductive health.

Is it possible that in President Obama's election, Americans have a chance to heal the body politic from the divisiveness the abortion issue has caused for a generation or more? We don't know, but one thing is certain: it won't happen if we don't try.

We believe RH Reality Check is well positioned to expand this dialog to be more inclusive while holding to our progressive roots and respecting those who believe differently but genuinely seek common ground. In the wake of the Tiller assassination, there may be no better time to ask people to think anew about how we all communicate these issues.

It is, after all is said and done, simply a choice we have before us, to continue the old paradigm of well worn and bitter divide, or stop and take a deep breath or two, and choose differently.

We are asking people from all political perspectives to remain open to the possibility that we can let go of the acrimony that brought us to this moment and envision a time when these most personal life decisions are no longer used for political manipulation, or domestic terrorism.

The truth is, most Americans have already found common ground.

The best and brightest minds working in philanthropy, non-profits and NGO's, advocacy, law, health care, research, politics and media, have invested tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in the most sophisticated public opinion research. Staggering sums that could be used to actually help women and children, not just hypothesize about how demographic groups respond to framing or word choice.

Most legitimate surveys, right, left, and non-partisan, indicate Americans are closer to consensus on many social issues than our politics indicate, which doesn't mean that everyone agrees. But it does mean we should move beyond questions of legality versus prohibition, toward policies that promote safety, health, responsibility, respect, and rights. Our energy should focus on making sure all Americans have access to factual information and education, reliable prevention and reproductive health care with the recognition that sexually healthy societies foster respect for everyone. Choices that are made from a place of respect and facts will naturally be better than those made from fear or misinformation. Biology is easier than wisdom and we should focus on helping people understand how to make better choices, understanding not denying human nature.

In the middle, away from the passions of the right or left, most Americans are already building common ground around shared understanding, compassion and empathy for the journey their neighbors are on, hoping that when their family faces difficult life decisions, others will be similarly supportive. By listening to voices genuinely seeking common ground, RH Reality Check hopes to provide a platform for civil discussion. We know the bitterness will continue on some levels, we only seek to expand the potential for something new to emerge, to remain open to the possibility that we can choose a healing path that could change the way we all discuss these issues in a healthy, respectful way, thus allowing us to see sexual and reproductive health in a new light.

We hope you too will choose a path that can lead to real change and give this discussion a chance.

Be the change you seek.

Originally posted at RHRealityCheck.org - News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

Comments

[rolodex]

(Oops, needed part 3 of 2)

You think I have any 'common ground' with the right? Not even close. And there won't be until we back them off their fundamental god position, and into a pro-human species survival position based on science, reason and logic.

We don't need fewer unwanted pregnancies, we need fewer pregnancies period. That is really the only humane population control tool we have, and we must use it aggressively. I wouldn't go so far as to force abortions on anyone, but surely am for aggressive persuasion to limit family sizes. As harsh as the west judges China on this issue, I'm behind them to that extent. I am pro-choice, but also pro-abortion.

[rolodex]

(Part 2 of 2)

Next on the left, the points always are about the rights of the mother and quality of life for both her and a potentially unwanted or deformed child. Decent points, but they often fail to apply larger principles. They mistakenly get sucked in to the life is sacred bit, and just argue over at what week the soul magically pops into the fetus. There is no soul, just an elaborate biological 'computer' that will eventually be able to be self aware and intelligent.

A bigger issue is quality of life, or even survival of the species at all, if we don't figure out how not just stop the population growth, but to significantly reduce it, and to do that in a humane manner. We are constantly reducing deaths from war, famine, disease, etc. but have done little globally to cut the corresponding birth rates. The industrialized nations have made big strides here despite the rights efforts, but we have got to do more, and do it lots more in the third world where the problems are already out of hand because of this.

[rolodex]

(Part 1 of 2)

Right CR & JFC, there is no common ground. But the issues run much deeper than just "safe, legal and rare", or "bodily autonomy rights" or "desire for fewer unwanted pregnancies".
As a progressive, an atheist, and highly concerned for the health of our planet and species, I see much deeper issues.

First on the right, it IS all about god. The gay issues are almost entirely driven by religious dogma, especially from the fundamentalist camps, but even some mainline denominations seem to struggle with it because it is still in that damn book. Funny though how even fundamentalist don't have a problem eating shrimp.

The reason they don't want abortions is indeed revealed by their position on contraception and sex education. Two things here - god said go forth and multiply, and they've invented this canard that every life is sacred from conception to birth. They don't want fewer unwanted pregnancies, they want more pregnancies period. Thank goodness the majority of the western world population doesn't buy this crap or our population would be significantly bigger that it already is.

[JohnFromCensornati]

I'm with CR. I'm not a woman, but if I was, I would want control of my body.
There is no common ground here and there is no common ground on gay issues. This is all about finding common ground with Je$u$.
Republican voters have shown that they will stick together and vote for any lunatic with an (R) next to its name. Dems have shown the opposite. This pandering to the right on so many issues will be costly.
I hope the Dems can spare the votes.

[ConstanceReader]

And I'm with JohnFC that there is no common ground on gay issues. Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Which also applies to the separate but "equal" bodily autonomy rights of woman vs men.

[ConstanceReader]

I'm sorry, but I can't buy into the idea that there is common ground on abortion. The abortion debate is about whether you believe a woman has autonomous control of her own body.
'
To define a desire for fewer unwanted pregnancies as common ground is a fallacy; it implies that the both parties agree that the procedure should be safe, legal and rare. But the anti-abortion position is not that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The position is that it should be illegal and nonexistent (whether or not they recognize that illegal=unsafe is another conversation).

And for many of the anti-abortion position, that opinion does not stop with termination but extends to contraception, another position that can not be reconciled with support for reduction in unwanted pregnancy.

[ConstanceReader]

I forgot to add that the anti-abortion additionally often extends to provision of, if not abstinence-only, then incomplete and medically inaccurate sex education to young people.