Closing the Compassion Gap
By David C. Reardon, Ph.D.
With only a few words of understanding and compassion, Bush can grab five to ten percent of the women voters leaning towards Gore.
It’s not hard. It just requires a better understanding of what the abortion issue really means to women. Over 25 million American women have had abortions. At least three times as many have daughters, sisters, or best friends who have had abortions. Feelings of guilt and shame (and a desire to protect their loved ones) make them suspicious of anyone who opposes “choice.” They are appalled that anyone would dare to stand in judgment over those women and men who have found themselves confronted with the agonizing decision to abort.
But look deeper. Research shows a tremendous amount of ambivalence in women’s attitudes toward abortion. For example, a 1989 Los Angeles Times poll on abortion included 202 women who admitted having a past abortion. Of these post- abortive women, 74 percent described abortion as “morally wrong,” but said it is a decision that “has to be made by every woman for herself.” A stunning 33 percent agreed with the statement, “Abortion is murder.” More than one in four reported that they “mostly regret” their abortions, and 81 percent agreed that women feel guilt after their abortions.
Most women who hold pro-choice views have deeply divided loyalties. While the destruction of human fetuses bothers them, often very deeply, they want to defend women from the accusing finger of the self-righteous. Abortion, they might say, may always be regrettable, but it is sometimes a “necessary evil.”
It is not the long range goal of eliminating abortion which offends women. Most would agree that in a perfect world abortion would not exist. What most offends them is that anti-abortionists appear to be insensitive to the plight of women.
I’ve studied and written about the post-abortion experiences of women for 17 years. I’ve spoken before college audiences that included post-abortive women who came ready to attack my “anti-choice” views. In every case, I’ve seen their hostility and resistence visibly melt as I express a compassionate understanding of their experience. They do not always leave agreeing with my political views, but they always leave knowing I am their friend, not their enemy.
Bush can do the same. He must understand that many post-abortive women are already struggling with their own unresolved feelings of guilt and shame. They may be inclined to believe that anyone who is against abortion is against them, ready to accuse them of evil and remind them of the most private and painful experience of their lives. The last thing they need is a president who will dump more guilt and shame on them.
Post-abortive women overwhelmingly support Gore not because he promises to appoint pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court, but because his pro-choice stance clearly sends the message, “I’m on your side. I don’t judge you.” At the same time, Gore’s reminders that Bush is “anti-choice” carry the emotional message, “He does judge you!”
Bush thinks minimizing the abortion issue is his safest course. He’s wrong. Women’s fears combined with Gore’s implications are a fatal combination. To capture more women’s votes, Bush must make a pro-woman/pro-life statements a centerpiece of his “compassionate conservative” message. He must directly and completely rebuke the implication that he is judgmental and condemning.
When asked about abortion at the next debate, Bush should seize the opportunity to show that he is on the side of women, both before and after they have had abortions.”I understand why women make the agonizing choice to have abortions,” would be a good start. He could go on to say something along the lines of:
I share the anger of women who have been pushed into unwanted abortions by their boyfriends, husbands, parents, or others who did not understand how deeply it would hurt them for the rest of their lives.
I do not condemn any woman who has made this tragic choice. Sometimes it appears that they have no other choice. But I am deeply concerned about all the physical and emotional problems that women suffer because of abortion.
A major recent study in the British Medical Journal, for example, has shown that women who abort are over six times more likely to commit suicide in the following year. My administration will support federal funding for research to better document the risks of abortion so women can make more informed choices.
I also share the anger of all the women out there who feel they were deceived by abortion clinics, and not properly warned of all the emotional and physical problems which they have subsequently endured. I’m on your side. I support laws that will make abortionists fully inform women of all the risks of abortion, not just the few they want to tell women about. For example, most abortion clinics continue to refuse to tell women about the studies linking abortion to a higher risk of breast cancer.
Most of all, I want to encourage support for the pregnancy centers that offer women the friendship and support they need to make the choice for life. I also want to encourage and support the many wonderful programs, most often run by post-abortive women, who are reaching out to help the millions of women who are suffering from unresolved grief, shame, or depression following their past abortions.
I’m on the side of women who have had abortions. I think women who choose abortion are making a tragic mistake. But I will never abandon them. I will be there for them both before and after their abortions.
* * *
David C. Reardon, Ph.D., is the author of Making Abortion Rare: A Healing Strategy for a Divided Nation (Acorn Books, 1996). He is also the director of the Elliot Institute, based in Springfield, IL. copyright 2000 David C Reardon.
