Larry D. Lauer

Could the recent controversial bill in the Texas legislature to curb abortion have come to a more amiable resolution? To do so would have required first establishing its “context” as a foundation for negotiation, and then for all parties to negotiate in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

1. The bill was written by a legislator who argued that his main concern is to protect the health of pregnant mothers. He is also a physician, which gives some credibility to his claim. However, critics see it as a clever way to politically advance the right-to-life cause and eventually eliminate abortions completely. The bill eliminates abortions after 20 weeks, and effectively closes all but very few clinics across the state.  Is there a way the goal of better protecting women’s health could be advanced while keeping a reasonable number of these clinics open?

2. The bill was also supported by people with a personal and/or religious commitment that the right to life is universal and the government simply must protect it. Is it feasible to revisit the separation of church and state principle on which this country was founded, and thereby seek some collaborative way forward?

3. The critics of the bill argue that a woman’s personal health is her private business and she should have the right to make her most private decisions on her own. The government has no right, they argue, to be making these most personal decisions for individuals. On this point, liberal thinkers seem to agree with the typical conservative position that governments should stay out of our personal lives. So is it possible to take government out of this discussion and find new more direct ways for those against abortion to make their case directly to the people.

In other words, can providing context on an issue like this make it possible to have a more intelligent dialogue about ways forward? Should the news media, strategic communicators, and educators, concentrate more on explaining the background and context of issues? For example, would explaining philosophical background, lessons from American history, possible alternative solutions, and more about how problem-solving processes actually work, help take the hard edge off polarized confrontation?

In the final analysis, will we ever again as a people consider that participatory negotiated compromise is the only true democratic way forward? After all our founding fathers certainly used compromise to launch this country. And, yes, amendments were made along the way to adjust and correct their initial decisions.

Facilitating compromise is a basic tool of the strategic communication profession. It’s a shame that few practitioners ever get to use it to help resolve polarizing social issues such as this one.