Florida on Wednesday prohibited abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Arizona, meanwhile, took a step in the opposite direction when its senate voted this afternoon to repeal a near-total ban on the procedure.
These actions underscore how the policy landscape has shifted and splintered since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal constitutional right to abortion nearly two years ago. They coincide with dozens of bills moving through all but four state legislatures that could reshape laws affecting reproductive health care and insurance. Ballots in November may include initiatives to amend language on abortion in as many as 13 state constitutions.
What’s harder to see is how the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is challenging individuals and communities to work through their deeply held moral and religious differences to mold consensus with compassion and empathy. A project in Wisconsin offers a valuable insight – and example.
In December, 14 Wisconsinites representing diverse social and professional backgrounds gathered in a three-day “solution session” hosted by the Washington-based Convergence Center for Policy Resolution. The group of citizens has now published five policy proposals emerging from its conversations. Residents of the state have through May to post comments on the ideas, which range from paid family leave to better information about services provided by pregnancy-focused health care centers.
The more interesting outcomes, however, were less concrete. The goal of the project wasn’t for participants to try to move each other from one side of the abortion debate to the other, but rather to find common values through listening. Women who had had abortions spoke candidly about the difficulties informing their decision. Participants shared their religious perspectives. One medical doctor spoke of striving to set aside her own beliefs to provide care consistent with each patient’s deepest convictions and values.
The result was a deeper respect for difference. “We didn’t take the bait of compassion with a condition,” said participant Ali Muldrow, executive director of Women’s Medical Fund Wisconsin, in the project’s report. “As important as the areas where we agree, I think the areas where we disagree are deeply important. … I think there’s a lot to learn from that.”
A group participant described as a pro-life advocate agreed. “While my beliefs on the sanctity and protection of all human life have not changed,” Jeff Davis said, “my experience with attendees who think much differently than I do has increased my compassion for what mothers go through and helped me realize that the issue has a lot of complexities.”
That kind of thinking may be softening the hardened battle lines of election-year politics. After the Arizona Supreme Court ruled April 9 to enforce an 1864 law banning almost all abortions, resistance came from an unlikely direction. Three Republican lawmakers in the House cobbled together a bipartisan vote to repeal the law, saying it was out of line with the values of Arizonans. Following the senate’s vote, the governor has promised to sign the bill.
“As someone who is both Pro-Life and the product of strong women in my life, I refuse to buy into the false notion pushed by the extremes on both sides of this issue that we cannot respect and protect women and defend new life at the same time,” said Matt Gress, one of the three representatives.
Nearly two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” One effect of that decision may be more civic listening. On one of their most divisive issues, Americans are learning that disagreement is not incompatible with compassion.