Obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Christine Lyerley participated in the three-day effort, which consisted of listening to patients, persuading them, finding solutions and taking some deep breaths.
Can people with diverse experiences and opposing views on abortion find common ground?
Last December, 14 people participated. Citizen SolutionsAt , an organization whose mission is to prioritize problem-solving over partisanship and solutions over stalemate, we spent three days sharing thoughts, beliefs and ideas, and exploring areas where compromise was possible.
The cast was a quintessential Gilligan’s Island cast, ranging from farmers to retired college teachers to me, the only doctor. Many other disciplines, faith traditions, and racial/cultural backgrounds were represented as well. We were handpicked to provide a range of perspectives, and our differences were noticeable from the beginning.
As we sat around the table and began to introduce ourselves, the conversation quickly became deep. Really deep. An incredible explosion of intimate stories we had harbored, revealing our souls and our motivations for spending a precious early December weekend with strangers who do hard, unpleasant jobs.
Over the next few days, the discussion ebbed and flowed. We broke out into smaller, more structured groups to work on specific issues. We ate together, sat obediently in designated areas so as not to gravitate toward those with whom we felt most comfortable. And we had hours of carefully moderated conversation, punctuated by guided breathing exercises when emotions erupted. And they did, and they did.
Our discussions revolved around fundamental and conflicting values, including the freedom to make personal health care decisions, the role of government in providing services to women and families, and differing beliefs about when life begins. Participants brought a range of proposals for the group to consider. Some were open and acceptable from the start, but as we fine-tuned our proposals based on our personal experiences and beliefs, it quickly became clear that there were many compromises to explore regarding education and financial support for people and families. Yet the issue of abortion itself remained elusive and divisive.
Here the group stratified. The five who identified as Christians were united and consistent in their belief that life begins at “conception.” Although there is no consistent definition of the term, their belief was unwavering. Exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother were supported by some, as were gestational age limits. Penalties for seeking or providing abortion care were discussed, resulting in one of my most personally charged exchanges, as one of my new friends explicitly suggested to my face that I should be penalized for providing standard, sometimes life-saving, medical care to my patients.
The role of language – seemingly innocuous terms like “baby” and “fetus” and divisive terms like “abortionist” and “murderer” – evoked strong emotions in some but was standard everyday language in others. My experience in the office with people of different belief systems, experiences and ideologies encouraged me to use neutral language, hoping to find a level playing field, a grain of solidarity that I could use as a starting point. It resonated with some, including one of the most vocal opponents of abortion. He introduced me to his wife and sons and said in front of the whole group, “I want you to be my wife’s doctor.”
Finally, we were able to reach an agreement. Some suggestions We are organizations that provide education and resources to individuals and families. We supported mandating human development education in schools and providing information about all options at pregnancy centers, abortion clinics, and prenatal care providers. We agreed that programs such as extending Medicaid to 12 months postpartum, providing a state refundable child tax credit, and implementing paid family leave, including for adoption and foster care, were important steps we could take to create healthier communities and strengthen families. On the issue of abortion itself, we shared our views, discussed, debated, and tried to create proposals, but ultimately could not agree on anything.
Looking back, I think some of us, myself included, walked away with a greater understanding of different views on abortion than our own, but no one changed their mind. In fact, no one was really swayed. This was too much.
To be honest, I’m not surprised. From our experience providing abortion care to “pro-life” women in difficult situations, we know that people often form opinions about abortion in two separate, sometimes contradictory spaces. It’s easy to have a public opinion that’s based on ideology and reinforced by those around you. But when a difficult or risky pregnancy becomes a personal reality, the situation is quite different, and what’s needed most is the ability to decide your own path forward.
Note: In December, I joined 13 other Wisconsinites with differing views on abortion and family well-being in Citizen Solutions, an effort to find common ground on divisive issues. I will not be involved in this project during my congressional campaign, but I invite you to learn more about and comment on the proposals we developed together at www.citizensolutions.us/wi.
