Guest post by Mark Silk, who is filling in for Steven Waldman.
Efforts on the part of the Obama administration and its allies to create some kind of common ground on abortion continue to stumble along. On Monday, evangelical intellectual David Gushee took to the pages of USA Today to declare his disappointment with the president’s various pro-choice policy moves. Meanwhile, the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, sat down with CBN’s David Brody (here and here and here), professing an interest in “dialogue” but ceding little ground. So here’s a simple guide to the challenge.
There are two basic approaches to reducing the number of abortions: carrots and sticks. Pro-choicers prefer the carrots: cheap prenatal care and adoption services, and the promise of sex without physical consequences via readily available contraception. Pro-lifers want sticks: legal barriers to abortion (including maximum “conscience” protection for health service providers opposed to abortion) and a moral regime based on sexual abstinence outside of wedlock. Pro-choicers are opposed to the legal barriers, while pro-lifers won’t give up the abstinence-based education. On the other hand, pro-choicers can live with a certain amount of pro-abstinence propaganda and “conscience” protection, while pro-lifers readily embrace prenatal care and adoption services. That’s where I’d seek the common ground.

Pro-choicers would have to cede ground on abstinence and “conscience.” Pro-lifers would have to dial back this kind of rhetoric (from Gushee): “My understanding of the majestic God-given sacredness of human life tells me that a society that legally permits abortion on demand is deeply corrupt. It pays for adult sexual liberties with the lives of defenseless developing children.” I’m not particularly optimistic.
Check out Mark Silk’s blog, Spiritual Politics.