It's not about reducing abortion. The advocates for a new common ground correctly note the correlation between poverty and abortion rates. But they fail to mention how poverty first contributes to unintended pregnancies.

There comes a moment in justice movements when society edges forward

just enough that once-heated controversies – suffrage, racial

integration, interracial marriage – become part of the cultural fabric.

Sexism and racism may continue to simmer, but the overall movement can

declare victory and move on.

On Election Day, the reproductive justice movement may have achieved

its moment. The election of a pro-choice President-elect puts Roe v. Wade

back on firm ground. Ballot measures that would have restricted

reproductive health rights in three states were all soundly defeated.

The Mexico City Policy, which blocks U.S. aid to international family

planning organization that counsel women on abortion, is expected to be quickly reversed. A post-election survey by Faith in Public Life showed that a clear majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal.

The fiercest opponents of women’s reproductive rights are not giving

up. But over the past few weeks, we have heard a commitment from

several Catholic and evangelical Protestant leaders to finding a new

common ground on abortion. David Gushee, writing for the Associated Baptist Press,

notes that, "Over 80 percent of white evangelicals and Catholics

believe elected officials should work together to find ways to reduce

abortions by helping prevent unwanted pregnancies, expanding adoption

and increasing economic support for women who want to carry their

pregnancies to term."

I welcome the support and collaboration of Professor Gushee, as well

as Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec,

Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals and others,

who are calling to "reduce the number of abortions."

But I am puzzled that their goal is to reduce abortions rather than the

unintended pregnancies that force women and families to consider

abortion in the first place.

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

The call to reduce unintended pregnancies is the right one. What we

must focus on now are the means to do so – specifically, comprehensive

sexuality education (not abstinence-only) and universal access to

contraceptive services, including emergency contraception.

The advocates for a new common ground correctly note the correlation

between poverty and abortion rates. But they fail to mention how

poverty first contributes to unintended pregnancies. Adoption

alternatives and economic support for poor pregnant women are important

– but these strategies do not address the fact that poor women are at

least five times more likely than other women to become pregnant

unintentionally.

Here’s what the Guttmacher Institute’s Susan Cohen

wrote the last time an abortion reduction strategy was floated by

Democrats for Life in 2006: "While it is theoretically possible that

increased social supports for pregnant women and even more

‘adoption-positive’ problem-pregnancy counseling could have some

impact, neither can hope to approach the real reductions in the

abortion rate that could be achieved by preventing unintended pregnancy in the first place." (Emphasis added.)

This is the real moral challenge we face. I’ve worked with thousands

of women facing unintended pregnancies. They aren’t looking for

"abortion on demand"; with only a handful of exceptions, these women

sat with me (often with their partners or parents beside them), and

they wept as they tried to decide what was best to do. Often they did

have financial concerns – not so much about how they would pay for

prenatal care or infant care, but about how they could afford to raise

a child (or in many cases, another child) to adulthood. Too

often, they did not have partners who they wanted to spend their lives

with or who could support them. As one of my colleagues has said, such

women have "too much responsibility already and too few resources, both

personal and economic."

So here is my suggestion for common ground. Let’s stop talking

about reducing the number of abortions as a goal in itself. Such talk

obscures what should be the principal objective – reducing unintended

pregnancies – and leads to counterproductive strategies that would

place restrictions on abortion access. It also misrepresents the platform that President-elect Obama ran on,

which affirmed a woman’s right to choose and opposed "any and all

efforts to weaken or undermine that right." The Democratic platform

called for "access to comprehensive affordable family planning services

and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed

choices and live healthy lives," as well as economic support for

pregnant women.

Let’s start talking about reducing unintended pregnancies.

This is not only the better public health position, it is a faithful

and moral one as well. Five years ago, the Religious Institute

published an Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision,

which includes this eloquent and irrefutable statement: "The sanctity

of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created

carelessly."

Surely this is the common ground where all of us – the new

Administration, the new Congress, even my Catholic and evangelical

colleagues – can proudly stand.