by Craig Klugman, Ph.D.

This blog is one I have been thinking about writing for a while, but feared to do so out of concern of social stigma and reprisals. In short, I have wanted to write about abortion laws in the United States, one of the most controversial topics in our society.

According to Planned Parenthood (even using this organization’s statistics is controversial since there are strong political feelings about the group), in the first three months of 2013, over 694 legal provisions have been considered on national and state levels to restrict abortion. Fourteen states passed 32 measures restricting abortions (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah). Just this week the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that bans abortion after 20 weeks gestation. And a bill introduced by one senator seeks to grant equal protection to “preborn human persons.”

In my own state of Texas, the governor has called a special legislative session that, among other issues, will examine several abortion laws, all of which were defeated in the regular session. There are advantages to passing bills in special session since a smaller majority is required to pass a bill, and the governor controls the agenda. The proposals include forbidding abortion after 20 weeks gestation, requiring physicians to have hospital privileges near the procedure location, dictating what drugs can be used, and requiring that all abortion clinics be held to the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers—an expense meant to drive most clinics out of business. This all comes from the same state that requires inter-vaginal ultrasounds and mandates physicians to read to patients a not-completely-factual script. Texas also prohibits public funding to be given to any organization that does business with any entity that performs abortions, even if the organization does not perform abortions itself.

Ohio is looking at a law that would require physicians to report how much of their income comes from performing abortions and would mandate an ultrasound, telling women that abortion causes breast cancer (scientifically not true) and stating that a fetus feels pain (not supported by accepted medical consensus). North Dakota this year has tried to amend its state constitution to define life as beginning at conception. That state also passed a law that forbids abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, about 6 weeks gestation using a transvaginal ultrasound. Arkansas now uses the same criteria to ban abortion at 12 weeks when an abdominal ultrasound can detect the fetal heartbeat.

This movement is a change in the “abortion wars.” Previous tactics have included chipping away at Roe v. Wade with smaller limitations on consent, notification, paperwork requirements, waiting periods, and other burdens. This year, the tactic is passing laws that have little chance of being upheld in the courts but seek to ban abortion rather than regulate it.

Opponents to abortion feel that these moves will help reduce the killing of the preborn by physicians (note the importance of the language used, “killing” and “preborn”). In their eyes, this effort is an attempt to “end a genocide.” Those in favor of women having reproductive choice in regards to abortion argue that these efforts are a “war against women,” an attempt to control women’s bodies, and an effort to legislate a particular view of morality. Another perspective holds that this is a difference in the status of the embryo and fetus whether viewed as a human being imbued with all rights and protections, a tissue with potentiality to become such a human being, or a cluster of cells inside another’s body.

I won’t take a position on the abortion laws and debate here except to note that there has been a change in approach, dialogue, and tactic in the last year. What is interesting to me is why I have been reluctant to write this blog. Mainly, I feared how I would be perceived writing about such a controversial topic. Writers have been known to receive death threats, hate mail, and face potential harm simply for expressing an opinion on this topic. But mainly, I was in the middle of a job search and I did not want a blog post to affect my chances. Today, personal opinions are not privately held beliefs but are presumedly known by the world whether we state our position to others, “like” a message on social media, or simply do not wholeheartedly agree with a speaker’s point of view. Friendships have been lost over a Facebook “like,” reposting an article, or not responding enthusiastically enough to what a person has said.

In a democracy it is essential that we have open dialogue and debate about the most fundamental and controversial of issues. And such conversations need to become heated and passionate. In the past, part of civil discourse was that you could disagree with a person and still maintain a relationship. Today, we are less able to separate the person from the position. Friends are more likely to be chosen and lost based on their political and religious views. The result is that we are isolated, talking only to others who think like we do. Democracy doesn’t work when we only reflect back what we think. Our ideas and beliefs need to be challenged, tested, reshaped, and then challenged again. Thus while I had intended to draw attention to the current state of abortion law in the United States, I realized the bigger debate was why simply choosing to write about this topic could itself be controversial. Having a conversation about difficult topics has become complicated and thus we tend to avoid such discussion. And avoidance of a difficult topic does not solve it, does not make it go away, and does not help build a stronger democratic community.