Impressions of Open Hearts, Open Minds and Fair Minded Words

A Conference of Life and Choice in the Abortion Debate.
Princeton University, Oct. 15-16th, 2010

Impressions from Kelly Vincent-Brunacini, Exec. Dir

I didn’t know quite what I expected as Hannah and I entered McCosh 50 at the beginning of the conference. I knew I liked the printed guidelines for participants that asked for civility in debate, listening, good faith and a refrain from using traditional negative language such as “pro-abortion” and “anti-choice.” I thought that the titles of some of the panels looked promising. Topics on fetal pain, support for continuing pregnancy and preventing unintended pregnancies were topics that could lead to discovering common ground. I liked the opening statements of the conference organizers who said that the history of reactive dialogue between the two sides has led to closed hearts and that during the conference we would map our disagreements and find common ground by which pro-life and pro-choice women could move forward together. Sadly, as the day and panels wore on, I lowered my expectations.

I take issue with some of the panelists chosen to represent the pro-life perspective. One panelist at the first plenary was addled and at times incomprehensible and did not represent the pro-life perspective well. David Gushee, from the School of Theology at Mercer University was an intelligent, impressive and consistent voice on the panels which he participated in but spoke from a purely Evangelical point of view. Gushee truly came across as desiring common ground solutions to the problems facing women and families. But an unreligious pro-life feminist voice was noticeably absent. When this point was raised near the end of the conference, pro-choice planners of the conference acknowledged that the panels were full of religious pro-life voices and rationalized this by saying all qualified pro-life leaders of equal credentials of the pro-choice panelists were religious. Meanwhile, non-religious pro-life leader speaker, writer and peace activist Rachel M. Mac Nair, Ph.D. sat in the front row, uninvited. Serrin Foster, Suzanne Schittman, Carol Crossed and a host of others that come to mind were missing from the panels with the result that the stereotype of pro-life encompassing only moral concerns for the fetus and lack of true concern for women went unchallenged.

Likewise, many of the panel titles addressing typical topics of debates such as the moral status of the fetus, a women’s obligation towards the fetus, public policy issues and the constitutional question of abortion fell short and other less typical topics such as abortion as a health risk to women, abortion as a violent blockade to peace and abortion as an industry were left undebated.

On a more encouraging note, pro-choice activist Rachel Laser, co-author of “Come Let us Reason Together,” a panelist in the first plenary – “Bridging the Abortion Divide: Recurring Challenges, Emerging Opportunities” – showed a genuine agreement or at least concession with some pro-life concerns, has a history of working together with pro-life organizations and showed a willingness to open her heart and mind. Rachel Laser complimented pro-life organizations such as Feminists for Life of America for their concern for the well-being of women. During “Providing Support for Continuing Pregnancy,” pro-choice author of “How the Pro-choice Movement Saved America” Cristina Page harshly criticized the traditional pro-life movement for historically voting against the very policies that enable women to carry their pregnancies to term (Medicaid, welfare, etc), but credited the “progressive pro-life” movement for their support of women in their efforts to continue pregnancies.

My conclusion is the intentions of the conference, being to chart common ground amongst both sides of the abortion debate, went unrealized – not because of a lack of good will and sincerity on the part of participants but because of the flawed structure of the conference itself and because of the genuine inability or unwillingness of key pro-choice panelists to relax into the premise of the conference. For example, one panel topic, “A Woman’s Moral Duty to the Fetus?” asked panelists to assume for the sake of argument that the fetus does have moral status and answer the question as to what the moral responsibility is of the women is to carry to term. The pro-choicer gave a convoluted counter argument and near the end admitted that her supporting analogies were somewhat weak. But since she doesn’t believe that the fetus has moral status anyway, the question posed was largely irrelevant.

The most embarrassing evidence of lack of authentic intention came from the former president of Catholics for Free Choice. During the final panel, “Abortion in America: should it be a Constitutional Question?,” she readily confessed she was unqualified to address the legal question but gave an impassioned rant about how she didn’t care who decided the question, only that it was decided in stone because it is “MY BODY, MY BODY,MY BODY”! She then went on dramatically to say that maybe now we’ll smile at each other, or be nicer to each other, but doubted we’ll be working together much in the future because truly there isn’t any common ground. The fragile respect and thin veneer of tolerance that had been present all weekend fell away and the air itself became hostile.

I’m not sorry I attended, though many from the pro-life side wondered aloud why they were there. Each person will take away their own impressions and will use them in varying degrees in future work. Nothing will go to waste. For me, three important points emerged. The first is that inequalities traditionally experienced by women have yet to be resolved. Women are physically, intellectually, morally and emotionally compromised in our culture. No one on any of the panels, no matter how credentialed or intellectually lofty, was able to convince me that legalized abortion has made conditions better for women. In fact, the question went virtually untouched. Secondly, I learned that all but a small minority of people agree that abortion after roughly the first trimester is morally problematic. That’s a start, I guess. Lastly, adoption is not the end-all solution for abortion. As Dorothy Roberts from the School of Law at Northwestern University pointed out, adoption laws and procedures need major overhaul. The process itself is fraught with racism, discrimination and elitism, thus making adoption itself a threat to children.

Each day will point the way to how we will go forward, together and separately.

Impressions from Hannah Murphy,
Project Coordinator and Development

I have needed much time to reflect on the recent common ground gathering at Princeton. As President Obama said at Notre Dame University, "We must find a way to live together as one human family…Open hearts. Open minds. Fair minded words." Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, used these words as a platform from which to open this conference. She likened the conference to a wedding where the families do not get along—where they stand at opposite ends of the room, talking about one another in not-so-nice ways. The coldness ends when that one crazy, fun uncle decides enough is enough, crossing to the "other" side, and everyone begins to realize slowly that, despite past differences, they can engage civilly and even so enjoy one another's company. Her introduction, so eloquently extended her hand, so to speak, made me eager to listen further.

With the first panel, I started to feel some pessimism. A friend once suggested looking at the list of names on a panel and asking "Who's missing?" and then "Why?" Like others, I wondered about the absence of people of color, but I also must commend the organizers for providing panels somewhat diverse in age and gender. On the first panel was Frances Kissling, looking very down-to-earth yet poised and wearing relaxed clothing. From the Public Conversation Project was Mary Jacksteit, also pro-choice, was very quiet, calm, and well-spoken. The third pro-choice panelist was Rachel Laser, young, blonde, and hip. She was quick with her words and chose them well. There were two pro-life panelists. David Gushee of the McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University, affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Mr. Gushee was tall, bearded, and wearing a suit. A pro-life evangelical Christian, he spoke prolifically of Jesus and our moral responsibilities. The other pro-life panelist was Jennifer Miller of Bioethics International. Looking professional and attractive, she wore a suit with silk scarf. She impressed me as very Republican, scripted, and out of her element.

For the sake of brevity, I will write the remainder of this reflection in bullets:

This conference, in my opinion, was sabotage. This may sound excessive, but if you were present, you might think my vocabulary quite gentle. Though the pro-life representatives were intelligent, passionate, and respectful, they were religious, Republican folks in suits. On the other hand, the pro-choice representatives were cool, down-to-earth liberals. I need not say more.

Rachel Laser, David Gushee, and some other presenters reflected the true essence of common ground. Ms. Laser, who seemed the truest crusader for common ground, said that both the fetus and the woman must be acknowledged and talked about in the abortion debate. Thank goodness the pro-choice voice is coming to this. Mr. Gushee said that every voice belongs to a person and that it is our moral obligation to talk with every person—even if s/he is our enemy. He, who I worried at first would be too religious, turned out to be awesome with his words, saying at one point that "the way we direct our religiosity can be divisive or fruitful." I believe he held to and shared his pro-life beliefs in a very fruitful way. Another presenter, Eva Kittay, after having been verbally abused by a pro-choice panel member, genuinely complemented that same panel member by telling the audience to read the other person's work as a key change-maker in the Feminist movement. Ms. Kittay heeded the advice of Laura Chasin, moderator for the first panel, when she said, "The fertility of common ground depends on all of us.

Both the pro-choice and pro-life sides were poorly represented. There was much theoretical and hypothetical talk—a little can be helpful, but too much can be detrimental. One pro-life panelist told the hypothetical story of a firefighter running in to a burning building and met with the choice of saving one little girl or thousands of embryos. Her point, she said, was that the firefighter was trained to save the most lives possible and so, in that situation, was obligated to choose the embryos. As for the pro-choice voices, one stuck out as mocking, abusive, hurtful, arrogant, and deceptive. At one point, she turned to Mr. Gushee and said, "We, as you know, are of two separate worlds. The world you live in…" Instead of finding common ground, she asked us to alienate one anothe

As pro-life folk, we must:
- Be diverse in every sense of the word.
- Be radical.
- Be collective in our movement. Though we have differing backgrounds, approaches, and beliefs, we are one human family. Let us be like brothers and sisters—argue and disagree, take breaks from one another, but remain united in our bond for humanity.
- Embrace David Gushee's words, "We, here today, just may be the third reality. There are the pro-choice, there are the pro-life, and then there are us, the common ground."

David Gushee came closest to being the crazy, fun uncle at the wedding. Too bad Aunt Frances didn't want to dance with him.

Hannah MD Murphy

Coordinator for Special Projects and Development, FCLNY
A Reflection on the Open Minds, Open Hearts, Fair-Minded Words Conference
22 October 2010