Speaking in January to New York state family-planning providers,
Senator Hillary Clinton made the following invitation concerning
the abortion issue: "There is an opportunity for people of good
faith to find common ground in this debate." Should Catholics
who agree with official teaching on the sanctity of the fetus
-- which I do -- take up Senator Clinton's offer?
Thus far, pro-life representatives have, for the most part,
declined. The Christian Defense Coalition has sought to meet with
Senator Clinton. However, Carol Tobias, the political action committee
director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), commented,
"She's not changing her position on abortion; she's trying to
make it sound more appealing." David Andrusko, a commentator for
the NRLC, was more scalding, describing Clinton's comments as
"meaningless" and "phony." Gary Bauer, president of the American
Values organization, referred to her statements as the "ultimate
makeover."
But wait. In his message to the March for Life the same month,
President George W. Bush called for "seeking common ground" wherever
possible. In response, pro-choice advocates have been as dismissive
as their pro-life counterparts. Ellen Goodman, columnist for the
Boston Globe, asked rhetorically, "Where exactly is it
'possible' to find common cause with those who call themselves
pro-life?"
Part of the difficulty in finding common ground is that, for
the most part, neither side in the debate is searching very widely.
When Goodman looks for common ground, she focuses on "Plan B,"
the after-the-act contraceptive, which she argues is not an abortifacient.
Pro-life advocates have pressured the FDA, helping to forestall
approval of Plan B. They criticize pro-choice representatives
for focusing only on the availability of contraception. Tony Perkins,
president of the Family Research Council, has said, "Their idea
of reducing unintended pregnancies is more sex education and distribution
of contraceptives. . . . That's not the solution; that's part
of the problem."
If we take the Democrats' "Prevention First" bill as illustrative,
the pro-life commentators' concerns appear on target. The bill,
put forward by Nevada Senator Harry Reid and co-sponsored by 16
Democrats, including Senator Clinton, would more than double the
federal funding for family-planning clinics, require private health
plans to cover prescription contraception, promote emergency contraception
and require federally funded abstinence-only education programs
to provide information on contraception upon request. The bill
has been a nonstarter. Republican leaders have by and large ignored
it.
Democrats counter that conservatives focus almost exclusively
on sexual abstinence as the means to reduce unintended pregnancy,
and thus abortion. The fact that the Bush administration is investing
$170 million in abstinence-only education programs next year during
a time of otherwise severe education budget cutbacks gives credence
to the Democrats' criticisms. When the Family Research Council's
Perkins chided the Democrats for focusing narrowly on contraception
to reduce abortion, he added, "If they want to start promoting
abstinence, fine -- but they won't."
So in their search for common ground, both pro-choice and pro-life
advocates point only to the prevention of unintended pregnancies.
However, because they frequently disagree so sharply on how to
reduce such pregnancies -- facing each other down in a contraception
versus abstinence stand-off -- there is little common ground to
be had. While this battle rages on, far less attention is directed
to the women who get pregnant despite their efforts not to do
so.
Finding common ground on abortion in a way that reduces its
incidence will require a shift in primary focus from the prevention
of unintended pregnancy (which is an important issue in its own
right) to support of the women who are already pregnant.
Why Do Women Have Abortions?
The most extensive study of the reasons why women have abortions
-- a survey of 1,900 women from 30 abortion facilities -- was
conducted by Aida Torres and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest under
the auspices of the Alan Guttmacher Institute. It was published
in the Institute's periodical Family Planning Perspectives
in 1988 and remains the most cited study on the topic.
The list of pro-life advocates and groups who have referred
to it is long: the National Right to Life Committee; the editors
of All About Life, a publication of the American Life
League; Americans United for Life, which has included Congressman
Henry Hyde of Illinois and neo-conservative commentator Richard
John Neuhaus on its board of directors; Helen Alvare, a former
staff attorney for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops;
and the late Cardinal John O'Connor of New York. Both the thoroughness
of the research -- as confirmed by the leading pro-life sociologist
James R. Kelly of Fordham University -- and the spectrum of organizations
drawing on its data make the study a benchmark on the question.
The first thing that jumps out from the study is its finding
that nearly all of the women -- 93 percent -- give more than one
reason for their decision. Sixty-three percent provide three to
five reasons, and 13 percent give as many as six to nine. The
mean number of reasons is 3.7. The data indicate that abortion
is not a single problem but a complex one with variable patterns.
The complexity of the matter also discloses that there is no panacea
-- whether abstinence, the "adoption option" or the wide accessibility
of contraception -- for reducing the incidence of abortion.
Without simplifying too much, it is possible to recast the most
oft-cited reasons under four basic categories. About three-quarters
of the women cite concern for their ability to continue in their
personal vocation (work or education). Two-thirds indicate a concern
about their ability to care for others (in the words of the study,
"woman cannot afford baby now," "woman is unready for responsibility"
and "woman is not mature enough or is too young to have a child").
Half of the women show awareness of the importance of a stable
relationship with the father for raising children ("woman has
problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood").
Just under a third cite fear of retribution ("woman does not want
others to know she has had sex or is pregnant").
Fear of retribution is the one area where Catholic women show
a statistically significant edge. Catholic women were 7 percent
more likely to report the concern that others would find out they
had had sex. This raises the serious question of whether a punitive
atmosphere in matters of sexual morality actually increases the
incidence of abortion, leading women to commit a worse act because
of fear of retribution for a lesser one. Such a situation is,
by formal definition, a scandal: It leads persons into sin. Whatever
the Church's response to abortion includes, then, it needs to
exclude punishment-oriented responses to premarital sex.
The study also confirms what pro-life advocates have long argued,
namely, that the so-called "hard" reasons (rape, incest, threat
to life of mother) are a factor in a comparatively small percentage
of cases. Only 7 percent of the women cite their health; only
1 percent cite rape or incest (although 1 percent of the 1.2 to
1.5 million abortions performed per year in the United States
is still 12,000 to 15,000 abortions).
While the study by Torres and Forrest is data-oriented, investigations
by others turn up narratives matching each of these four reasons.
Psychologist Carol Gilligan's in-depth interviews with women disclose
that concern for continuing with their education or jobs is a
key factor for many. One, for instance, reports, "I was going
to lose a really good job that I have . . . and I would have to
be put in a position of asking help from a lot of people a lot
of the time."
With regard to the care of others, particularly children, Mary
Mahowald, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University
of Chicago, describes a case that came to her attention:
A 32-year-old woman with multiple sclerosis became pregnant
despite use of a diaphragm. She and her husband had two children,
4 and 6 years old, for whom she was the principal caregiver. Although
the couple were generally opposed to abortion, both were extremely
concerned that continuation of the pregnancy would further compromise
the woman's health. Previous pregnancies had resulted in permanent
aggravation of her condition, to a point where she required a
wheelchair. One week after learning she was pregnant the woman
requested an abortion. She hoped, she said, to preserve her ability
to care for the children she already had.
In researching for her book Real Choices: Offering Practical,
Life Affirming Alternatives to Abortion, pro-life author
Frederica Mathewes-Green held "listening sessions" in major U.S.
cities and found that the absence of communal support, particularly
support from the father, is a key factor contributing to the incidence
of abortion. She reports, "[One woman commented,] 'My boyfriend
and I had been dating for four years, but when I told him the
news, he was terrified. He didn't want to admit that it was his
child.' A chorus of sympathetic 'oh's' sounded through the room,
attesting to a shared understanding of this especially painful
rejection."
Finally, the sociologist James Davison Hunter's interviews with
women illuminated in a poignant way the fourth-most-common reason
women give for having abortions: the fear that someone would find
out she had sex or was pregnant. The woman in question did not
in fact get pregnant but nonetheless reported in her reflections
on her youth during the pre-Roe v. Wade years that if
she had, "I would have had an abortion immediately. I'm just sure
I would have found a way to have an illegal abortion without any
regard to the risk involved, because it would have been far better
to face that than the anger I would have had from my father."
A Model for Action
What, then, should the Church and its members do?
Again, given the complexity of the situations women face, there
is no one option, but the Nurturing Network provides a good model
with which to start. Founded by Mary Cunningham Agee in 1986,
the Network is a nationwide, nonprofit organization with more
than 42,000 volunteers in all 50 states and 25 nations providing
the resources for women to bring their pregnancies to term and
to address the matter of the care of the child that results.
Prior to starting the organization, Agee contacted 10 abortion
clinics across the United States and asked the clinic staffs to
give her phone number to any women willing to discuss their experiences
with her. The informal survey was necessary because this was prior
to the Torres and Forrest study, and at the time there was, as
Agee told the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources in
1990, "very little hard data about the motivations and concerns
of women facing crisis pregnancies."
In Agee's conversations with 100 women, 91 indicated that they
would have brought their pregnancies to term if they knew that
certain types of aid existed. Among that aid, the women cited
housing accommodations and work and educational opportunities
-- particularly in communities other than the ones they resided
in at the time -- and financial assistance to meet medical and
other costs.
On the basis of this informal survey, Agee drew up the key pastoral
responses that still constitute the Nurturing Network. Of crucial
importance are the vocational and educational "networks" for those
women who might otherwise have an abortion. A referral service
for working women allows them to move to another location, bring
the pregnancy to term and then take on new job responsibilities
with a member company. Thus the traditional stigma attached to
pregnancy and childbirth-- a stigma that still exists today --
need not jeopardize the woman's workplace vocation.
A similarly structured program was designed for women in college.
A network of more than 140 participating colleges and universities
allows for the temporary transfer of pregnant students. The Nurturing
Network literature explains that this service is offered so "a
woman can continue her pregnancy while protecting the quality
and continuity of her education." Whether moving to a new job
or a new school, the women stay with Network-member families.
In addition, financial assistance, medical assistance and parent
training classes are made available.
The Network also offers balanced adoption counseling, so this
decision can be made free of felt coercion. "Each counselor in
the Network believes in a mother's need to be informed and her
sole right to decide in an environment free of vested interests."
For the 30 percent of the women who decide to give the child up
for adoption, the Network informs them of the various options
available. Furthermore, the Network realizes that even if the
decision to give up the child for adoption is the right one for
the woman, she may still experience tremendous grief. Therefore,
the Network also provides post-adoption counseling.
Considerable overlap exists between Agee's survey and the pastoral
experience of the Nurturing Network on the one hand and the Torres
and Forrest academic study on the other. Each serves as a verification
of the other. Both have found the ability or inability of the
women to continue in their educational or workplace vocation to
be a vital factor. Moreover, the offer of housing and financial
and medical assistance in addition to educational and workplace
placement by the Network confirms the Torres and Forrest finding
that women are concerned about their ability to care for the child.
Also, the Network's service of facilitating the relocation of
the women verifies in practice the finding of Torres and Forrest
that a significant factor leading to abortions is the fear that
someone will find out about the pregnancy. Finally, both the Network
and the study point out that punitive measures serve only to worsen
the situation. For this reason, the Network remains steadfastly
nonjudgmental. Agee was adamant on this last point in testimony
she gave to the U.S. Senate:
This woman is your neighbor, your staff member, and maybe even
your daughter. These are women you see every day. I have found
too often that when a societal issue becomes as controversial
as this one, we lose touch with the faces behind the numbers.
. . . [W]e need a lot less rhetoric and less judging. We need
a lot more practical compassion. This is why The Nurturing Network
was created, to give these women a real alternative, one which
recognizes their unique values, needs and circumstances. Our purpose
is not to remove an option but to create one. It is not even to
spend time debating the merits of one alternative over another,
but to make sure that no woman feels she has no other choice.
. . . Unless we are willing to offer the emotional, social and
financial support needed by women facing this kind of pregnancy,
we cannot legitimately express either condemnation or surprise
when we discover that they have chosen a less hopeful solution.
Common Ground?
So, pro-life Catholics should provide aid to women with unintended
pregnancies. But should they cooperate with pro-choice groups
and people in this effort? The logic of the pro-choice argument
-- that is, if it is indeed pro-choice and not pro-abortion --
would suggest that there is common ground. There is an obligation
on the part of pro-choice adherents as well to provide alternatives.
It is not by accident, then, that persons of both "pro-life"
and "pro-choice" orientations serve on the Nurturing Network board,
and that advocates of both positions support its activities. Planned
Parenthood lists the Network as one of the options when it counsels
women. Wendy Jordan, a Planned Parenthood community services director
in Idaho, has commented, "From our perspective, it's critical
for women with unwanted pregnancies to be aware of the resources
in our community. This is an important resource." Normally a political
adversary, Debbie Roper, the corporate secretary of Right to Life
of Idaho, concurs. "We would be supportive of any crisis pregnancy
center that offers support to unwed mothers and their babies.
Personally, I feel it is right and necessary for a crisis pregnancy
center to stay nonpolitical."
Again, Agee articulates the point with force. "I ask everyone
to put aside the polarizing rhetoric of pro-life and pro-choice
and to discover the common ground of mutual understanding and
practical solutions. There is so much talk these days about empowering
women. What greater power can we give them than the tools to survive
a crisis? That's what the Nurturing Network is all about."
Other efforts at such cooperation are few but significant. Perhaps
the most notable is the movement guided by the Common Ground Association.
The movement began with the actions of two persons who would be
least expected to search for commonality. Andrew Puzder is a pro-life
lawyer who wrote Missouri's restrictive 1986 abortion law that
led to the Supreme Court case Webster v. Reproductive Health
Services.
In December 1989 Puzder wrote an opinion piece for the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch called "Common Ground on Abortion." The
piece states, "According to a report by the Children's Budget
Coalition dated February 1989, 20 percent of Missouri's children
currently live in poverty. Yet an astounding 55 percent of Missouri's
children living in single female-headed households live in poverty.
While those who are pro-abortion would use these figures as a
social justification for legalized abortion and those who are
pro-life find economic justifications for taking human life simply
heinous, surely those numbers alone suggest the existence of some
common ground between the pro-life and pro-choice factions."
Soon thereafter, B.J. Isaacson-Jones, the director of the health
services that challenged the Missouri law all the way to the Supreme
Court in the Webster case, invited Puzder to the abortion
clinic for a conversation. Puzder agreed on the condition that
the meeting be at a time when the clinic was closed. They later
were joined by Jean Cavender of Reproductive Health Services and
Loretto Wagner, the past president of Missouri Citizens for Life
and founder and present president of Our Lady's Inn, a set of
two homes for women with unintended pregnancies. The model of
their conversation and, to a lesser extent, of their action, has
spread to about 20 groups nationwide, including those in Buffalo,
Cleveland, Milwaukee, San Francisco and Denver.
In1993, an international conflict-resolution organization, Search
for Common Ground, began to provide a centralized institutional
base for these efforts and formed the Common Ground Network for
Life and Choice. In 1999, this leadership role was passed to the
National Association for Community Mediation.
Isaacson-Jones commented that once the conversation began, "It
was shockingly easy to identify issues we agree on, like the need
for aid to pregnant women who are addicted to drugs, the need
for better prenatal care and the need to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Neither side wants women to need abortions because they don't
have the money to raise a child."
These insights have led to concrete actions. For instance, in
1990, Reproductive Health Services added an adoption agency to
the clinic. In 1992, the agency placed more than 30 minority babies,
more than any other agency in Missouri. In addition, the Saint
Louis group members have compiled a manual from the advice of
experts to aid foster parents and mothers of infants exposed to
crack or alcohol in the womb. They have worked together for legislation
for a school breakfast program and for rehabilitation, housing
and job training for pregnant, drug-addicted women. Each side
agreed not to attach riders so that the bills could become law.
Perhaps the most dramatic joint action was the support for a
pregnant 10-year-old. When the child came to Reproductive Health
Services, the doctor ordered bed rest for the last two months
of the high-risk pregnancy. Wagner raised money from pro-life
activists for a full-time attendant while the 10-year-old's mother
worked. Persons supporting reproductive rights, in turn, paid
for the prenatal care and the delivering of the baby, which was
given up for adoption.
Indifferentism by Neglect?
Despite all of the evidence that pro-life/pro-choice cooperation
can significantly reduce the incidence of abortion, such activity
appears to most members of both sides of the debate to be, at
best, unseemly, and more likely a betrayal. Isn't it immoral to
cooperate in this way?
History provides us with an informative precedent. In the early
1940s, American Catholics debated about whether to cooperate with
other Christians in the rebuilding of society in Europe after
the war. The primary concern for those who argued against cooperation,
Monsignor Joseph Fenton and Father Francis Connell, was the maintenance
of the purity of Catholic doctrine. They charged that Catholics
who cooperated with Protestants were risking "indifferentism"
regarding doctrine. Connell wrote, "I am fully convinced that
ordinarily the association of Catholics with non-Catholics in
such organizations and meetings is a grave menace to our people
. . . and that whatever good they may be producing is far outweighed
by their disastrous spiritual consequences."
Father John Courtney Murray countered both that Roman Catholics
could cooperate with others and were morally bound to do so. The
question of whether to cooperate with other Christian denominations
in a particular instance depended on persons' prudential judgment
in light of two guiding principles: Catholic unity and the common
good. In his particular case, he argued that Catholics could cooperate
with others for the sake of the common good without sacrificing
their own core beliefs.
The evidence from the Common Ground Association appears to give
contemporary affirmation to Murray's argument. Wagner is adamant
on this point. "No one is ever going to convince me that it's
all right to kill unborn babies, and I'm going to go on working
to make abortion evil."
The members of the movement distinguish carefully and forcefully
between a middle ground on questions of the status of the fetus
and the morality and legality of taking its life on the one hand,
and common ground on matters of the social context of abortion
on the other. Isaacson-Jones writes, "Our goal has never been
to resolve the abortion debate. We are not trying to mediate a
compromise or even find middle ground." Puzder likens the common
ground to the place where two circles overlap.
Wagner, Isaacson-Jones and Puzder joined with Cavender to write
a St. Louis Post-Dispatch commentary in 1991 that accented
this point: "Of course, this point of view we call 'common ground'
continues to leave the fundamental conflict intact. Abortion is
not a simple issue, and it does not lend itself to compromise.
The freedom of individual choice and the right to life seem to
be at an ethical impasse in this conflict. Even the authors of
this article hold decidedly different views on abortion and will
continue to defend and further their respective positions: B.J.
Isaacson-Jones and Jean Cavender will continue their work to preserve
a woman's right to choose; and Loretto Wagner and Andrew Puzder
remain committed to protecting the unborn's right to life."
I would take Murray's argument one step further: Cooperation
does not compromise Catholic integrity; it is through cooperation
that we can manifest that integrity. One of the key points in
Murray's about rebuilding postwar society was that the problem
to be addressed was too large for any one group to address by
itself. That holds true for the abortion issue today.
With all of the Nurturing Network's efforts, it has, by its
own estimates, helped slightly more than 17,000 mothers and their
children. In other words, in just under 20 years they have seen
that thousands of pregnancies have been brought to term that otherwise
might not have been. That's hundreds per year, during which there
are more than a million abortions in the United States. Moreover,
the Common Ground movement may be fading. My web search found
the latest article on their activity to be written in 1999. Much
more must be done in aiding women with unintended pregnancies
in order to reduce abortion.
It is obvious that the pro-life community cannot do it alone.
Agee, who received the 2001 Ex Corde Ecclesiae Award from the
Cardinal Newman Society and is vice chair of the Culture of Life
Institute, formed the Nurturing Network as a cooperative group
not in spite of her pro-life convictions but because of them.
She saw that to meet our own moral aims, even in a modest
way, we must cooperate with others or else we will fail even by
our own lights: We will be guilty of indifferentism by neglect.
Todd Whitmore teaches theology at Notre Dame, where he is
also a fellow in the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies
and director of the Program in Catholic Social Tradition.
(July 2005)
