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.
Appreciate our work?
Rewire is a non-profit independent media publication. Your tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
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
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
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
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.