Aspen Baker's blog

Getting Emotionally Involved

2009-06-29T01:37:13-04:00

When President Obama called for Americans to find “common ground” in the abortion debate, I thought of Exhale and our message of pro-voice. I know we can all stand on common ground, because I see it under our feet. On May 27, 2009, I and fellow Pro-Voice Ambassadors stood together on that common ground and advocated for research that supports the emotional well-being of each woman who has had an abortion. That day, I gave oral testimony before the National Institutes of Health at a regional meeting in San Francisco, which gave communities a voice in establishing research priorities for women’s health over the next 10 years. I asked that the Office of Women’s Health Research (NIH/OWHR) work to better understand what women, and their loved ones, need after an abortion in order to support their own emotional well-being.

The desire for the emotional well-being of women is common ground. It doesn’t require compromise of human rights or moral values and it doesn’t require the sacrifice of dearly held beliefs. The research agenda we proposed to the NIH/OWHR reveals this common ground by addressing three indisputable facts:

1.    Millions of American women have already had abortions.
2.    The personal experience of abortion can be emotional.
3.    People want and deserve emotional well-being.

In my testimony, I spoke about my own experience searching for resources after my abortion, a journey that led me to found Exhale, the nation’s first organization dedicated to promoting emotional well-being after an abortion.

Danielle Thomas, a fellow Pro-Voice Ambassador and an Exhale counselor, spoke about her experiences on Exhale’s national, multilingual post-abortion talkline. We spoke about the important role of emotional health in overall health and well-being.

Finally, we provided recommendations for the research the NIH/OWHR should undertake to promote emotional well-being post-abortion, which includes the need to:

Assess the psychological and emotional needs of women after an abortion.

Evaluate the effects of different post-abortion emotional support models on a woman’s well-being.

Examine men’s emotional experience with abortion.

Understand the characteristics of healthy coping after an abortion in diverse communities.

Explore the connection between the social experience and the emotional experience of abortion.

Common ground is not just a plan to be unveiled by the White House, known only to President Obama and his advisors. There is no such thing as a “common ground” political position. You cannot search for common ground or set it as a goal, like ending smoking or drunk driving. Common ground is what is real, truthful, and undisputed, and it is always beneath our feet. Our responsibility as pro-life, pro-choice, or pro-voice advocates is to notice it, acknowledge it, and seek to address it.

The need for this approach is clear when it comes to the emotional experience of abortion. For too long, the polarizing impulses of the abortion conflict have held this issue hostage. The facts – abortions have already happened, they can be emotional, and people want emotional well-being – have been turned into political fodder instead of being addressed seriously, comprehensively, and publicly as important information about a woman’s well-being. Consider the “regret vs. relief” stand-off about what “most women” feel after an abortion. The dichotomy serves political ends and helps differentiate opponents. What it doesn’t do is offer a way forward, or paint a picture of how the world would look and feel if these three indisputable facts were addressed.

Forcing the issue into either-or territory creates false choices, even in how to identify one’s own position on abortion: “Do I side with those who understand that abortion can be emotional, but who want to limit its availability, or do I side with those who try to make it more available but refuse to acknowledge its emotional impact?”

This has been a choice forced upon many Americans. It is one choice none of us should have to make. As Jon Stewart said in his recent interview with Mike Huckabee on The Daily Show, choosing sides on abortion often feels like a choice between “frenzied and maniacal or callous and indifferent.”

We deserve more, and better. There is common ground upon which to stand.

Instead of being forced into a false choice, Americans should feel confident that their legitimate concerns about indisputable facts are being taken seriously, and that the emotional well-being of women who have had abortions is being addressed, pro-actively.

This is what I want. This is why we started Exhale: to address the reality of abortion in women’s lives and to take a stand next to each and every woman who has had one. We call our work pro-voice, because it is the voices and experiences of those who have lived this issue that should drive the discussion. On The Daily Show, when Mr. Huckabee posed a question about how pregnant women think through their rights and responsibilities, what I wanted most was for the women who have called Exhale to have the chance to answer. Their voices could directly counter the problem with the abortion debate, which Mr. Huckabee described as generating “more heat than light.”

Of course, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University, recently pointed out in a speech to Planned Parenthood, we should not push or prod people to speak out about a personal, stigmatized issue. This can in fact cause more pain and be detrimental to emotional well-being. Instead, respect and comfort are the best tools for helping people to build their confidence and resiliency. This is one more reason why it is important to directly address the facts through research, and create a deep and thorough understanding of women’s emotional experiences with abortion.

Forward-thinking leaders have already embraced this challenge. Tracy Weitz is leading a research effort at the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program at the University of California-San Francisco to better understand women’s emotional experiences with abortion, a project that Exhale was proud to join as a partner. Ms. Weitz is pro-actively addressing the indisputable facts – women have had abortions, abortion can be emotional, and people want emotional well-being – and ANSIRH’s investigation will help identify how best to respond to them. I hope more leaders will follow her example.

Research to promote emotional well-being after an abortion is common ground because there is nothing to compromise, no human right or moral value to sacrifice, no ground to give way. The only losers are those who fight to keep things the way they are.

But the winners! Let’s consider them. Americans will win because their concerns will be taken seriously, and they will reward forward-thinking leaders with new credibility, another win. Most important, women who have had abortions will win because there will be research, information and services to support their emotional well-being.

Undoubtedly, there will be big debates over President Obama’s common ground policy. I hope that leaders will remember that common ground – the indisputable facts: women have had abortions, abortion can be emotional, and people want emotional well-being – is always beneath our feet. All we have to do is look down, respond, and stand strong together.

Peace for the Abortion War, Part II

2009-03-06T08:00:00-05:00

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.

Related Posts

Aspen Baker, The Pro-Voice Solution
Amanda Marcotte, Peace through Pro-Voice?
Aspen Baker, Peace for the Abortion War

This piece was also posted at Aspen Baker's blog.

At Tonight's Address, What Obama Should Say About Abortion

2009-02-24T08:00:00-05:00

In Sunday's issue of the New York Times, William Saletan confirms that "President Obama wants to end the culture wars" and reminds us that his "joint address to Congress this week could be an opportunity to change that debate." I couldn't agree more.

But, I disagree with Saletan about what President Obama should say. Saletan argues that Obama should defuse the culture war by telling pro-choice pragmatists to get a sense of morals and telling pro-life moralists to get realistic. I think that President Obama should acknowledge the unique and legitimate moral and emotional experiences of women who have had abortions - instead of focusing on the opinions and convictions of those who haven't stopped to listen.

In his Address, President Obama is expected to emphasize the many challenges facing our nation and the world, and lay out his vision for how to move forward. The economy - the loss of jobs, homes, credit and effective regulation - and the need to improve health care for American families will undoubtedly be at the top of his agenda, and bipartisan strategies will most likely be the overarching theme of his speech. It is in this very spirit of bipartisanship that President Obama should address one of the most divisive issues of our times: abortion.

In a speech of this magnitude, a speech that the whole world will watch, all it takes is one sentence to change the course of world events. In one sentence, President Obama can reframe the whole debate and finally address abortion as a matter of the heart. With just a few words, the President can convey his support and his respect for each member of his audience who has personally experienced abortion. He can - and he should - show that he cares. A post-partisan world needs a message that will speak to women post-abortion.

In our election-season campaign, Pro-Voice in '08, Exhale and RH Reality Check asked women who have had abortions what they wanted to hear from the next President when he gave his first State of the Union speech. Today, we publish their voices and ask President Obama to speak directly to us - the millions of American women, and our loved ones, who have personally experienced abortion - in his first Presidential Address.

Here is what we would like to hear:

"I know it was really hard for you and you were very unhappy for a while afterwards, and I also know that you did the right thing, because nobody else knows what you need as well as you do."

"I can only imagine how difficult a position you must have been in, and I respect and honor the thought and care that you used in making your decision."

"I believe that you were thoughtful and compassionate as you considered the heart-wrenching, life-altering and soul-splintering place that you were in regarding the potential for life within you. I respect your choice and the strength required to choose, and the courage to live, truly live alongside your choice each day."

"I'm sorry you were in such a difficult time in your life, and I will do my best to protect other women who face similar issues."

"I know it was not an easy choice, but I trust you with the choice you made. And I respect your right to make the choice."

"I trust that you have made the most responsible, intelligent and moral decision for yourself and your family."

Are you a woman who has had an abortion and know what you'd like to hear from President Obama? How can he convey - in one sentence - support and respect for your unique experience? Add your voice and be a part of creating a pro-voice dialogue by contributing a comment or uploading your own video here.

Watch videos women have already uploaded:

The Pro-Voice Solution

2009-01-27T08:00:00-05:00

Editor's Note: After reading Muammar Qaddafi's editorial, "The One-State Solution," on the Israel/Palestine conflict in the New York Times last week, Aspen Baker rewrote the editorial to address the abortion war.

In one day and with only a web page, President Obama reversed eight years of the White House's pro-life agenda and replaced it with a new pro-choice one. The cycle of war - victory and retribution, triumph and payback - continues, reminding us why a final resolution to the so-called abortion war is so important. It is vital not just to break this cycle, but also to deny the leaders who feed on the conflict an excuse to grow their fight and further the divisions.

But everywhere one looks, among the speeches and the advocacy, there is no real way forward. A just and lasting peace between pro-choice and pro-life people is possible, but it lies in the history of those who have fought over this conflicted issue, and not in the tired rhetoric of "common ground."

Although it's hard to realize, the cycle of war between the pro-life and pro-choice people has not always existed. In fact, many of the divisions between pro-life and pro-choice are recent ones. People on both sides of the abortion issue worked alongside each other for years delivering babies, helping families in need and opening up the adoption process to make it more supportive and respectful of women, adopted children and their families.

Pro-choice and pro-life people can be members in the same family. Throughout the decades both faced hostility and judgment from others for their views and they often found solace in each other when they talked, and learned about their different perspectives. Pro-life people can support the legal right to have an abortion and pro-choice people can hope for a world free of the need for abortion.

The history of abortion is not remarkable by human standards - over the course of history, people have found - and continue to find - ways to manipulate and control nature to make our lives easier, healthier, and longer. But it is our cultures - our values, beliefs, morals and norms - that help us make sense of our power and give us codes and direction for how to relate with nature. Yet, across the world and throughout history, there is great diversity in how cultures value women, the unborn, children and abortion. That is why it gets complicated when members of either side proclaim the moral high ground.

The basis for the legal right to abortion is the historic inequality of women, which is undeniable. Women used to be the property of their husbands, unable to own their own land, not to mention left legally unprotected when raped or abused. Women want and deserve their equal rights, especially to their own body.

But the value and treatment of human life is of great importance to cultures throughout the human race and the growing life inside a woman is viewed by many as sacred, including by the woman herself.

Thus pro-life people believe that protecting the growing life within a woman is paramount, even if the woman herself does not want to carry the child. And pro-choice people believe that her right to do as she chooses with her own body is more important than the value of what's growing inside of her. Now, as a pro-choice agenda has been re-established in the White House, calls for "common ground" persist. But neither will work.

A "common ground" solution will create unacceptable conditions for pro-life and pro-choice people. A country where abortion is legal, but abused teens have to get permission from their violent parents and dying women late in pregnancy are refused abortions no matter their circumstance, is a country that has written off entire segments of women as undeserving of equal rights and protection, an unacceptable concession for pro-choice people.

For the same reasons, a country that only seeks to reduce abortions, rather than eliminate them, with free contraception and comprehensive sex education does not take the strong, moral stand against the practice of abortion and only slows the loss of life, a weak-kneed attempt at appeasement that pro-life people will reject in the face of their higher calling.

In absolute terms, the two movements must remain in perpetual conflict or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is "a life choice" for all, a pro-voice agenda that would allow the people on each side to feel that their values are respected throughout the country and they are not deprived of practicing any part of their beliefs.

A key prerequisite for peace is safety for every woman who has had an abortion and the right to speak the full truth of her experience - the good, the bad, and the ugly - and be heard from all sides. It is an injustice that these women who have not done anything illegal have been marginalized, stigmatized and silenced from all sides despite their experiences being at the center of this conflict.

It is a fact that when abortion is made illegal, abortions don't end, instead numbers of abortions go up as do deaths of women. It is important to note that pro-life people do not hate women, nor are they advocating for women to die. Yet, they must understand that this is a consequence of their political actions and the onus is on them to figure out how to uphold and promote their value of life for both women and unborn children. Only a pro-voice solution can accommodate all the voices on this issue and bring about the justice that is key to peace.

Integration of pro-choice and pro-life values is already a fact of life in the United States. Most Americans want fewer abortions, are against making it always illegal, and value the human life that grows within a pregnant women. This successful integration can be a model for "a life choice."

If the present interdependence and the historical fact of Pro-choice/Pro-life coexistence guide their leaders, and if they can see beyond the horizon of their own recent wins or losses and thirst for revenge toward a long-term solution, then these two peoples will come to realize, I hope sooner rather than later, that living under pro-voice is the only option for a lasting peace.

This piece is also posted on Aspen Baker's personal blog.

Peace for the Abortion War

2009-01-13T18:37:37-05:00

The mixture of excitement, nerves and anticipation will be felt by every woman gathered in the Roosevelt Room. Big, goofy grins, solemn, serious faces, nervous chatter, a hand held or two. We will be in our best clothes or the ones that make us feel the most comfortable, feel the most ourselves. Some of us will avoid each other's gaze. I like to imagine that I will sit calmly, holding eye contact with the person across the room from me, and nod to her in recognition of this historic moment. Together, we will wait for him to arrive.

We are a room full of women who have had abortions and we are the first to ever be invited by a President of the United States to a White House meeting to tell our personal stories. This meeting is a public acknowledgment of our shared experiences and a statement of Presidential support and respect for every woman who has had an abortion. This is the first political step of a peaceful approach for resolving the abortion war.

For more than 35 years our country's conversation about abortion has been stoked into a divisive war. It is time to begin the healing process and chart a new path for resolution. I believe abortion peace will exist when each woman who has lived this experience can tell her story and be supported, not shamed. A White House meeting focused on personal story-telling is a concrete and symbolic action that the President can take to demonstrate his intent to forge a new path for addressing abortion in the United States.

One in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, but our voices are seldom part of the public debate and there is little social understanding or acceptance for what we experienced. People go to war over our experiences, as we've become caricatures, myths, people to be mocked, feel sorry for, hide, shame, protect, or put on a pedestal. When we are acknowledged, it is often as pawns, prepped to tell prescribed version of events: "Abortion made me hate myself" or "Abortion brought me to life." Our deeply personal stories are never accepted without concern for their political implications and portrayals of our stories in media and culture are far too often based in stereotypes and myth. We often do not even see ourselves in each other. This war has divided us too.

The truth is our stories and personal experiences with abortion are far more nuanced than the simplistic - and antagonistic - debate that rages around us. After my own abortion, I remember thinking that the public debate had virtually nothing to do with how I felt and what I needed. I remember feeling in awe of the fact that I could safely and medically end a pregnancy and realizing that my whole life wasn't at the mercy of nature or circumstance. My decision to have an abortion felt like a decision to play God and that was powerful and scary beyond words. Choosing to not change my life was a life-changing experience for me. Afterward, I needed space and time and understanding to process all of this and reflect on my own values and beliefs about the meaning of life, including my own. But, when I tried to engage with the broader political debate over legal abortion, I was asked to simplify my decision and silence the emotional impact of my abortion in favor of defending my right to have had one in the first place, or to become a victim of abortion rights and deny my ability to cope and grow and be whole after such a life-changing experience.

The author talks about her personal experience with abortion.

I couldn't believe the debate had sounded the same for so long, despite how much the world had changed and how many of us women, and our loved ones, have had their own experiences with abortion. Our rights, values, lives and needs are really what this debate is all about. How could the debate not respond to us and better reflect our experiences?

It must. Not only to be more supportive of women who have had abortions but because a more honest, reflective, responsive dialogue has the potential to overcome the years of damage the divisive debate has had on the health and well-being of our nation.

Roe v. Wade celebrated its 35^th anniversary last year. In the next 35 years, the United States has the opportunity to have a very different conversation about abortion than it has for the past three decades. We can extend a baseline of universal respect for the beliefs others in our nation hold about abortion. Dialogue can replace war. Reproductive health policy can grow from our loved ones' lives and needs and our media - books, TV, and films - can represent women who have had abortions as we truly are.

How would our world change? Consider the debate over informed consent laws - laws that require doctors to tell women seeking abortion that they are terminating the life of a unique human bring. It is obvious that informed consent laws impinge on women's right to access medical care free of state interference - and we can respond to informed consent laws by referencing women's constitutional rights. But we can also respond by asking women who have had abortions what kind of relationship with a provider would have been most helpful to them in considering and seeking out abortion. If our response to informed consent laws were informed by research on what type of information and counseling would have helped women seeking abortions feel best supported and informed, we could learn about significant gaps in services that must be remedied, unnecessary hoops that could be eliminated, and best practices to be promoted. Most importantly, this approach focuses the debate back on women's own, personal, specific and real needs for information and counseling.

What if the voices and experiences of women who have had abortions were featured in major women's publications, and treated with the same level of respect and significance as given advice about how to best cope with divorce or find the right gynecologist? What if there were online support groups in which women who have had abortions could come together and connect with each other without fear of targeting or attack? If we review and assess potential policy through the lens of women's real, lived experiences with abortion, and we create public forums for women to speak for themselves, we can build a more open, more respectful, process for making these important decisions, one that invites new voices and opens up new ways to understand abortion and its role in our society.

This approach will ensure the debate is about real people with real problems and real needs. And women's responses will point the way towards peace by revealing new opportunities for engagement, connection and actual dialogue. I don't know where this path will lead, but I do know that if we let ourselves listen to women's lived experiences, our individual opinions about abortion will be anchored by and respectful of the reality of women's lives.

It is exactly the right time to take up the cause of abortion peace and President Obama is just the man for the job. He can begin by taking yet another unprecedented, historical step to build unity in place of partisanship. A White House meeting to publicly acknowledge the experiences of women who have had abortions is a peaceful approach to transforming the abortion war and sets a tone for new possibilities for the next 35 years of abortion in the United States.

Look for more dispatches from Aspen Baker's vision for peace in the abortion war on RH Reality Check in the coming weeks. This post also appears on Aspen's personal blog.

Pro-Voice 08: One Sentence That Shows The President Cares

2008-09-25T08:00:00-04:00

A new president's first State of the Union address does nothing less than frame the future. That first address stakes out the goals of a new administration. Behind the scenes, entire wars may be fought over just one sentence -- because it takes only a few words to change the course of world events.

It is time for the next president of the United States to chart a new path in the abortion debate. All he needs is one sentence. A sentence that shows he cares for each person in America who has experienced one. What should that sentence be? He needs to hear the answer to that from people like you, and people like me: people who have had abortions.

Rarely does a public discussion include anything new on the subject of abortion. The national debate and poll results typically follow the same trends. Yet there is one perspective that has not been heard: the voice of each woman who has had an abortion, and the voices of her loved ones.

It is time that we are heard.

Social stigma has forced many women and men to keep their personal experiences a secret, and as a result, our unique stories get lost in the debate.

For almost seven years, I have led an organization called Exhale, which provides women and men who have experienced abortion with something that I was not able to find after my own: a safe, non-judgmental space in which to receive emotional support from people who care and wish me well. Through our national, multilingual talkline, we have listened to people of many backgrounds and ethnicities, people who practice diverse religions or none at all, and who hold a range of values about abortion. Their feelings about their abortion experience are as unique as they are, and influenced by what they have experienced in life and what they believe about the world. As they travel the landscape of possible feelings after an abortion, Exhale witnesses them finding their own unique paths among the many that lead toward emotional well-being.

The most common themes we hear from women and men are feelings of isolation and fear of judgment. Our direct work is to help them cope, learn and grow from these experiences as whole, thoughtful and complete people. To deepen and expand this work and truly support all people on their path toward well-being, we must all work to identify the shame, judgment and stigma so frequently attached to abortion and replace them with empathy, compassion and non-judgment.

A president, especially a new president setting goals for the next four years, has the power to influence and inspire. That's exactly what people hope for from their leaders. When the next president speaks about abortion, an issue that has deeply affected the lives of so many Americans, he'll have the power to help us change the discussion. He can do that simply, powerfully, by speaking one sentence, a sentence that conveys support and respect for what we have gone through. I know what I want to hear: "I truly believe you did your best, and I want you to know that I care."

What do you want to hear?

Pro-Voice in '08, a video campaign produced by Exhale and RH Reality Check, calls on all women who have had abortions to post a one-sentence video response on YouTube that answers the following question: What should the next president say to convey his support and his respect for your personal experience with abortion?

Join the conversation. Here's how:

Watch my call to action on YouTube.
Upload a video of yourself saying the one sentence you want to hear.
Post a comment with the sentence you want to hear.

One sentence can change the course of world events. Let's change the course of the abortion debate and create a new discussion - one based on support and respect for each person's own unique experience with abortion.

Want to join the conversation? Instructions on posting a video on YouTube are available here.