Abortion’s middle ground

Concord Monitor, Op-Ed

Vikram Mansharamani lives in Lincoln and has a degree in Ethics, Politics, & Economics from Yale University. He formerly taught at Yale University and Harvard University.

This summer’s overturning of Roe vs. Wade elevated abortion as a topic motivating voters in the mid-term election. While I understand, I’m also confused by the political hoopla.

You see, after speaking with thousands of Granite State women and families during the course of my campaign as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, I’m convinced the issue is more divisive for politicians than it is for voters.

How many people really want to ban abortion entirely? How many people want to allow abortion up to the moment of birth? I suspect the number is less than the number of those in the big middle between these extremes. Surveys of public opinion tend to agree. There is, despite the deafening media noise, broad consensus among the voting-age population.

That last sentence will seem wrong to many, especially those who listen to the banter spewing from career politicians and political activists. Within those echo chambers, Democrats demonize all Republicans as seeking to strip women of their reproductive rights and Republicans suggest all Democrats want to kill babies. Neither is true.

Personal interactions reinforce these perceptions as conversations and friendships are increasingly sorted by political affiliation. And the media doesn’t help. We are forced to pick teams, and being a member of one tribe demands you adopt its belief system. Purity tests run supreme. Ultimately, the question asked is whether a policy should strip rights or kill babies. Which objective do you seek?

I reject these choices. I believe policy can protect women’s reproductive rights and also protect life. There is a middle ground, despite what politicians or the media want voters to believe. New Hampshire’s current laws balance the two objectives quite well – banning abortion only in the last trimester of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical necessity.

Many believe that the Supreme Court’s decision sent the matter back to the states. It’s important to note that Justice Samuel Alito explicitly stated “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” The decision did not say anything about returning the issue to the states vs. the U.S. Congress, but the 10th Amendment in our Bill of Rights does state anything outside of federal jurisdiction should be the domain of state policy. Unless Congress takes up the issue, abortion policy will be determined by states.

The more I reflect on this matter, the more I realize federal legislation may be forthcoming. Should a woman’s reproductive rights be based on her zip code? Do the rights of an unborn fetus change while crossing a state line? Neither of these concepts seems logical. When it comes to abortion, the New Hampshire way appears consistent with broad public sentiment, both here and nationally. If abortion legislation does get presented in Washington, our representatives in D.C. should fight for our beliefs, values embodied in our laws that balance the rights of mothers and the unborn.

Unfortunately, federal legislation hasn’t tried to balance these objectives. In fact, earlier this year Democrats sought to codify abortion until birth. I believe most Granite Staters and Americans disagree and believe this policy to be extreme. Frankly, aside from the need to protect the life of the mother or a fatal fetal diagnosis, I can’t understand why anyone would want this ability. We need to protect life.

Ultimately, we must realize that compromise is not always bad. During the Granite State debates held earlier this month, I was asked how I would vote if a law banning abortion at 24 weeks arose in the U.S. Senate. I said I would vote to support such a law, but only if it also allowed for abortions before the ban. Such a policy prevents extremists from claiming victory, but it also allows the country to move towards addressing pressing challenges such as out-of-control spending, persistent inflation, energy scarcity, and the rapidly escalating rivalry with China.

Abortion is a complex topic and details matter, but that’s the point. The hard work of legislation is to take common-sense beliefs held by the people and generate appropriate laws that reflect their will. Thinking across silos can help. Could the recent backlash against vaccine mandates motivate the right to collaborate with the left to propose legislation (or even an amendment to the U.S. Constitution) to protect an individual’s right to control his or her body? Might there be some common ground?

We need to focus on addressing the needs of hard-working families. We need to unify, not divide, our country and if that means compromising, so be it. Granite Staters are tired of polarization and politics, we want progress. Every politician wants to be a fighter, but a fighter doesn’t always have to be at war. It’s time we aim for a politics of effectiveness, not warfare.