A recent Gallup Poll appears to show a shift in public opinion on abortion, with more Americans than ever identifying as "pro-life." But experience shows that such labels as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are hopelessly dated and serve to drive wedges between us. In fact, the poll itself might be asking the wrong questions altogether.

Read deeper into the results of this and other recent polls and you'll find that, no matter what the label, most Americans want to keep abortion legal.

We know from frontline work in 2006 and 2008 in South Dakota to defeat two abortion bans, that the more we engage in substantive discussion about the issues that affect the health and safety of women, the more people understand and honor the complexity of the abortion issue and recognize the need to leave these personal decisions to women and families.

It is in conservative South Dakota that a new chapter in the conversation about reproductive rights was written this year. A broad bipartisan grassroots coalition fought Initiated Measure 11, which sought to ban most abortions, and not only won but transformed the political landscape around reproductive rights.

South Dakota is a deeply conservative state:  46 percent of voters identify as conservative; 12 percent as liberal. And more than half of voters believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Voters didn't reject abortion bans because they suddenly became "pro-choice."  They did so because they strongly believe that women and families, not the government, should make these personal decisions. Further, they did not believe a ban would address the root causes of unintended pregnancy.

Both sides came together in defeating these bans. That coming together is the direct result of leaving behind the divisive tactics and language of the past and moving forward to forge a more thoughtful, inclusive conversation. This is how and why a majority of voters in one of the reddest states in the nation was willing to engage in the political process and agree that banning abortion is unacceptable.

The truth is that many people are morally ambivalent about abortion. Even the most conservative Americans want to keep abortion safe, legal and rare.  Why? Because abortion is a morally complicated issue, which is precisely why women are entitled to think it through and come to their own conclusions.

One of the biggest lessons from South Dakota is that we as must work toward active, respectful conversation. By bringing to light situations that call for empathic responses, we were able to start a productive and sincere conversation and find a middle ground.

It's time to stop using the divisive language of the past and start acknowledging and respecting the internal conflict felt by many voters on this issue. 

Acknowledging moral conflict is not something to fear. Finding common ground is not ceding ground. It's higher ground. It's showing respect for women's ability to make the best decisions for themselves and their families.

The key to expanding the conversation is to acknowledge differing views and concerns about abortion while reinforcing the idea that abortion is a personal matter in which government and others should not interfere.

Roe v. Wade has been settled law for decades.  Those who try to rekindle that debate with heated rhetoric are taking the focus off the common goals that most of us share: reducing unintended pregnancies and making sure that women have access to the health care they need to build healthier, stronger futures.

These are goals we can all agree on. Let's move beyond labels and toward meeting these goals.