Let’s Dump The ‘Pro-Choice’ And ‘Pro-Life’ From The Abortion Debate

Please read the whole article on Talking Points Memo

Excerpt:

Readers of the New York Times were recently greeted with a pretty astonishing shift: Advocates who want to increase access to abortion, like Planned Parenthood, are dumping the word “choice” as a framework for the abortion debate — a word that has been in place for decades.

Back in 1986, the abortion rights movement was facing the conservative backlash to the social movements of the 1960s and ’70s. Reaganism was in full effect. So was the War on Drugs. More people were subject to arrest and imprisonment, sparking the beginning of mass incarceration.

In Arkansas at that time, feminist activists faced a daunting political challenge: a proposed constitutional amendment to declare the rights of the unborn. Given the increasing hostile conservative political climate, the activists sought to make their message mainstream and palatable to Southern voters.

Slate journalist William Saletan documented this calculation in his 2004 book, Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War: leaders sought to connect the right to an abortion with white southerners’ fears of outside attempts “to confiscate their firearms or bus their kids to black schools.”

It worked. Using the message of privacy and choice, the feminist coalition won — narrowly. This win marked the first time an abortion victory was due to alignment with a conservative political agenda. Saletan points out how this anti-government “keep your laws off my body” approach created a “mutant version of abortion rights as a viable alternative to the feminist, egalitarian version originally envisioned by pro-choice activists.”

One can win the battle and still lose the war. Nevertheless, the “pro-choice” label—conveying the right to privacy and a righteous stand against government intrusion — stuck. It has been the defining message of the abortion rights movement ever since.

…

The old dichotomy of the culture war is dying.

It’s time to chart a new path. While Planned Parenthood may not have been in the lead, their shift does signal an important cultural moment. The true test for them, and anyone else who seeks to shape the future of the abortion conversation in our country, is whether we can create a new, more respectful public narrative.

Imagine what becomes possible if we successfully move far beyond the prevailing question: “which side are you on?”

Read Full Post »

Openness Shouldn’t Create Partisan Debate

* This was first published in the New York Times, “Room for Debate,” on June 30, 2013, amongst other opinions on the impact of women sharing their abortion stories.* 

When I had an abortion it was safe, legal and covered by health insurance. I had no horror story to tell of a scary back-alley procedure, and I had no heartfelt regrets.

But the facts didn’t begin to describe my experience of having an abortion. My story was one of challenge and triumph, heartache and loss, friendship and family, and so much more. I wished I could have talked about it, without my story being used to promote abortion rights or to help dismantle them. Instead, I wanted to join with others to create a conversation rooted in the diverse, complicated lives of the women and men who’d experienced abortion.

It’s crucial that a range of experiences — from remorse to hope — are heard and understood in all nuances, no matter the political outcome.

That conversation is starting to happen. More women, and some men, are sharing their intimate experiences in private and public ways. One result is that the myths and stereotypes of who has abortions are beginning to crumble in the face of true stories. Another result is that women and men who’ve experienced abortion are now able to find and connect with each other. Feeling supported and comforted after an abortion, instead of isolated and alone, goes a long way toward healing and well-being.

But, sharing abortion stories isn’t all warm and fuzzy. There are real risks for the woman and for this emerging conversation about abortion in our lives.

A woman who shares about an abortion experience with family or friends can put her relationships in jeopardy. And, while social media can connect people by spreading stories quickly, a woman can lose control of her story – and her message – as it moves across the Internet. These risks can be mitigated with community support, but it’s hard to build community without first taking a risk.

My worst fear is that our personal stories will become commodities in the political marketplace, casualties in the conflict over abortion that get repackaged to benefit one side or other of the debate.

That’s why it’s so crucial that the full range of personal experiences women and men have with abortion — from remorse to hope — are able to be heard and understood in all their layers and nuances no matter the political outcome.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Pro-Voice: Ambiguity is Invitation to Engage

I was honored to be a part of the closing plenary of Netroots Nation 2013 in San Jose, California on June 22, 2013.  The plenary was a series of speakers using the Ignite model: 5 minutes, 20 slides progressing automatically every 15 seconds. I was stoked to be the first woman speaker amongst many of my heroes and role models.  I am particularly grateful to Jenifer Fernandez Ancona for being my champion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tx-T8OkMZhU

Read Full Post »

The Rewards of Leadership

At 30-years old, I hit a metaphorical wall.  I was exhausted and burned-out.  A social entrepreneur, I had poured my whole self into the venture I began at 24-years old and it seemed there was nothing left of me, for me.  I had a hard time getting to sleep.  I cried a lot.  I was broke.

I looked for role models, for other feminists who had dedicated their lives to changing the world by leading organizations to see how they did it.  I saw just two choices.  Either I could keep going, personal sacrifices be dammed, and find myself an old, bitter lady fighting the same battles year after year, with increasing exasperation and exhaustion. Or, I could quit and find something less taxing and also, less meaningful. I thought this was a false choice. I wanted a third-way, a path where I could be a leader with a joyful heart and a full life.

I set out to make that path. You might say, I leaned in to the challenge.

Read Full Post »

No More “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice”

* This was first published on Mother Jones *

Jane Roe never had an abortion. In fact, she is not even pro-choice. Her real name is Norma McCorvey, and it’s been 40 years since she was the anonymous plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that eventually became the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

McCorvey’s legal pseudonym is shorthand for a defining victory of the pro-choice movement, yet she has dedicated most of her life to the pro-life movement. She is a symbol for all that was won and all that has been lost in the decades of culture war—a conflict that has unmoored our nation’s public discourse on abortion.

Norma is like a lot of people who regularly shift their views and allegiances surrounding abortion. These changes show up in opinion polls, and activists on both sides regularly use them to claim that their side is capturing the hearts and souls of Americans. But, the truth is that our hearts and souls have been waiting for the politics to catch up.

Read Full Post »

After An Abortion: How to Show a Loved One You Care

*This was first published on Exhale.*

Tonight, on NBC’s hit show Parenthood, teenage character Amy, the girlfriend of Drew (the son of Lauren Graham’s character, Sarah Braverman) has an abortion. Earlier in the series, viewers watched these two young people decide to have sex with each other, both for the first time.

The character Amy is not alone. Even though we don’t see personal experiences with abortion portrayed very often on TV or in the movies, abortion is incredibly common. Over a third of women in America will have one by the time they are 45; and women are talking more openly about their abortions.

Chances are you know someone like Amy or Drew. Or, you know a parent like Sarah who is dealing with the abortion of a son or daughter. It’s still rare to talk with the people in our lives about an abortion experience, so if someone you love tells you that they’ve had one, it’s important to show you care.

Read Full Post »

I Am Rising

I was honored to be invited to participate in Eve Ensler and V-Day’s One Billion Rising Campaign.   I love how this campaign is about more than ending violence, it’s about women, and our allies, coming together to be safe, supported and thriving wherever we are in the world. Talk about world peace.

Here’s the video about why I’m rising.

Read Full Post »

Cara FLOTUS (Dear FLOTUS)

*This was originally posted on Exhale.

My letter, below, to the First Lady of the United States (written before election day) was translated into Italian and  published in the November issue of Vanity Fair Italy.

Dear First Lady,

Your predecessors are stunning examples of women who have used their position to influence our nation’s progress, and I have no doubt that your leadership will strengthen the legacy of our nation’s First Lady’s.

Every American Presidential election is a decision about where our nation is headed and with yesterday’s win, you are in a unique position to shape what’s next.

I write to you today with an unusual request: Will you show the nation how to be a great listener to our abortion stories?

Let me explain why it’s so important.

Read Full Post »

Today, In Oakland: Spring Is Here!

Read Full Post »

Peace for the Abortion War, Part 2: Symbolic Concession, Not Compromise

Researchers in the Middle East recently asked citizens what it would take to bring about peace in their war-torn region. What they found might surprise you. In what many in the West might consider a “common-sense” offer, Palestinians would be asked to give up their right to return in exchange for a two-state solution and a $10 billion per year for 100 years. Yet both Israelis and Palestinians from across the political spectrum rejected these options. They would not sacrifice for peace.

But, if researchers suggested that the deal would come with an official apology from Israel, the whole picture changed. “Yes, an apology is important, as a beginning,” said Mousa Abu Marzook, the deputy chairman of Hamas. When Benjamin Netanyahu, a hard-line former Israeli prime minister was asked whether he would consider a two-state solution if Hamas recognized the Jewish people’s right to an independent state, he replied, “OK, but the Palestinians would have to show they mean it.” The researchers, Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, concluded in their New York Times editorial in January that “making these kinds of wholly intangible symbolic concessions, like an apology or recognition of a right to exist, simply doesn’t compute on any utilitarian calculus. And yet, the science says they may be the best way to start cutting [through] the great symbolic knot [of Palestine] that is the ‘mother of all problems.”

Imagine that: an apology. Not land, or money, or sovereignty. A symbolic act of recognition, an act that says I see you and I understand, can have more impact than “material and quality of life matters” on the possibilities for peace.

There are several things to learn from this. First, researchers did not survey the hard-line leaders. They went to the citizenry and asked them what they needed as conditions for peace. They raised the silent voices of those who are most impacted by the conflict and presented their responses to the leaders. Second, the researchers found a way to get at the heart of what is at stake, beyond the concrete and typical concerns about electricity, water, and the economy that are often the focus of negotiations. Their research clarified that for anyone involved in a conflict as long-lasting, deeply-felt and consequential as the conflict in the Middle East, the sacrifice of values and beliefs is considered unacceptable and could never lead to peace.

If you have been following my posts on how to bring peace to the abortion war here on RH Reality Check, or have read Amanda Marcotte’s critique of my theory, you probably know where I am headed. In my posts I have proposed that the voices of women who have had abortions should lead the dialogue about abortion in the United States, not the current leaders of either side, as part of a strategy that I call pro-voice.

What I hope to convey now is that addressing abortion as a matter of the heart and soul, rather than an issue of legal rights, can open up new possibilities for peace. I will show why compromise or politically-minded “common ground” solutions will not resolve our war: the abortion war.

Many readers have questioned my use of the term “abortion war” despite the fact that this terminology is a common cultural reference. I understand their concerns. In conflict, the ability to define the debate is part of the battle. Each side wants to name the problem in a way that supports their goals, and hurts their opponents. This is also true for the abortion war. If you ask people with a range of political views what the “abortion war” is about, you are bound to get very different answers. Some will say that the war is waged to save innocent unborn babies, and others argue that it was drummed up to drive a wedge between people who may otherwise agree. Still others say that the “abortion war” is in fact a patriarchal assault on women, their bodies, rights and sexuality. Fighting over the inherent meaning, the root cause, of any given conflict is intrinsic to every conflict.

Despite their disagreement, what people on different sides of the issue have in common is a deep and fundamental belief that their fight is not only important and justified, it is an opportunity and a privilege to fight for what they believe. In essence, this war isn’t about any one particular issue or right, it is about the importance of who we are, our own human dignity, and the strength of our conviction to fight on our own behalf.

I offer myself as an example.

I love a good debate. I love to be challenged to think in new, critical ways and equally enjoy pushing others to do the same. I believe fundamentally in people’s inherent goodness and in each person’s innate desire to strive to be better – and I believe that we can harness that drive to improve all of our lives. And I have had an abortion, something I never thought I would do, which has forever changed the way I look at the world. After my abortion, I came to understand the value of the phrase “Don’t judge others until you have walked a mile in their shoes” in a whole new way. I made a promise to myself to practice that value every day of my life. My abortion was an awakening, a maturing, and a loss of innocence, in the best and the most difficult sense of the term. Through direct personal experience with the issue, in combination with my own personal passions and drive, I have found this difficult debate over abortion to be an incredibly compelling place to put all my experiences, values and beliefs into practice.

This war gives me something to do, something valuable and something important. I do not want to give up that sense of purpose in my life. Neither do many of the women and men who have formed an identity as a pro-choice or pro-life crusader and who have invested time, passion, and money in their cause. That is why it is not effective when outsiders call for an end to war through compromise. Even though both sides can probably understand why “Americans are just tired of fighting over abortion” – as Jean Schroedel, a political scientist at Claremont Graduate University told the Wall Street Journal recently – crusaders won’t accept compromise as a political solution because it demands that they sacrifice deep and profound parts of who they are and they will not. They cannot. I won’t.

In a war for human dignity, you cannot ask opponents to split the difference.

But, the fight over abortion has created a conflict of epic proportions, attacks are personal and crusaders are hurt. Feelings of disrespect, humiliation, and worse, misunderstanding, at the hands of opponents make the need to be seen and heard, to be proven right, even stronger. This is how conflict works, how it escalates and polarizes. With a deeper understanding about the cycle of conflict, not only can we de-escalate and transform the abortion war, we can take the steps that lead towards peace.

I believe that it is possible that as a society we may arrive at a time when we are able to discuss the role government should play in matters of sexuality, pregnancy and parenting without choosing sides through the lens of war, without worrying whether a decision will strengthen or weaken the political power of the pro-choice or pro-life movements. Peace does not mean that we all agree, but that we focus our higher purpose on transforming the conflict instead of feeding a war.

It is an interesting and unlikely time to plan for peace in the abortion war. After years of political losses, there is a clear pro-choice majority in all three branches of government and it is safe to assume that peace is not in the political interest of winners. And yet, after a long and vicious battle, wins are no longer as sweet for either side. Warriors, while as committed and passionate as always, are tired. The dramatic wins they hoped for have not occurred. One side has not captured the heart and soul of all Americans. In fact, Americans have demonstrated remarkable consistency on the issue – poll after poll demonstrates that most people don’t like the idea of abortion very much, think it’s a pretty significant emotional experience for women, and believe that it ends a human life-of-some-kind, but are against making it always or mostly illegal, and hate the idea of government regulating their private, personal lives.

Rather than continuing to invest in what is bound to be a long, vicious slog on an issue that feels increasingly irrelevant to Americans confronting grave threats to our planet and economy, we can invest in transforming the conflict and start addressing matters of the heart. We can begin with an apology (“I’m sorry I called you a baby-killer/vicious misogynist), a recognition (“The value you place on life/rights is admirable”), or a symbolic concession (“I believe abortion can be emotional for women/I believe in protecting the health of pregnant women”). We begin by saying: “I see you and I understand.”

Leaders on both sides can and should be the first and set an example for the rest. And, instead of trying to recruit more Americans to the fight, when we already know they are tired of it, leaders should invite Americans to join them: to grow our collective understanding about the experiences of women who have had abortions and to co-create a vision of care and support for women and their families. Americans are great problem-solvers – all we need is a little inspiration and someone ready and willing to lead the way.

Together, we can and we should venture towards peace.

*This article is cross-posted on RH Reality Check*

Read Full Post »