Nikolai Morse ‘24
Staff Editor
This past Tuesday, Common Law Grounds held its second event of the year, with abortion as the selected discussion topic. In an email previewing the event, the organization acknowledged the highly sensitive nature of the topic, saying, “Is any topic in American politics more contentious than abortion? Since Roe v. Wade, there has been almost constant litigation about abortion access and abortion regulations.” The contentious nature of the topic is one of the reasons Common Law Grounds selected it for this event’s focus.
Given recent legal developments in the fight over abortion rights, the discussion seems particularly well-timed. With several major cases before the Supreme Court this term, the issue of abortion is more salient and relevant than any time since 1992 when the Supreme Court affirmed abortion rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Just last week, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in two cases challenging Texas’ infamous SB 8, which effectively deputizes anyone who is not a Texas state government employee to enforce abortion restrictions by granting standing to sue any person who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” one. Within a month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, in which plaintiffs are explicitly asking the court to overturn both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, and thereby effectively end the constitutional right to an abortion.
It was against this backdrop that approximately twenty-five students gathered in the Purcell Reading Room and engaged in small-group discussions about their views on abortion from personal and policy perspectives. Each group had a facilitator from Common Law Grounds, who began the conversation by asking people to identify where they fell along the ideological spectrum generally, and specifically with regards to abortion. Following this, the group considered questions designed to guide the conversation and display the range of views everyone in the group held.
As they discussed the issue, students ate pizza from Mellow Mushroom. The choice to discuss the topic over lunch was one that leaders of the event noted at the outset as being intentional, that by “breaking bread together” the students were building community and a space in which challenging and enlightening conversations could be more easily had. This is in line with the group’s mission to “encourage discussion and debate among students and faculty across the ideological spectrum with the goal of identifying and articulating areas of agreement about core values and practices, isolating points of substantive disagreement while also looking for common ground and fostering a culture of open and civil dialogue about legal and political issues.”
Despite the challenging topic, students appeared to enjoy themselves and engage in the discussion. Many noted that their group had several places where they found common ground.[1] Rachel Martin ’23 said, "We were still all able to talk to each other respectfully and understand the values that motivated each other's viewpoints. While we might have disagreed on the relevant weight to give to different considerations and whether/when abortion should be legal, my group agreed that abortion isn't a good thing and that it is better to ensure access to contraceptives and sex education so that people can avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. There was also agreement that we should really treat pregnant women and mothers better, so that we're not punishing those who choose to bring a child to term.”
Overall, the event was seen as a success by those who attended. Common Law Grounds President Connor Kurtz ’22 said, “Abortion is the most divisive issue in American politics. You wouldn’t know it from our CLG event. Yes, there was passion, but there was also mutual respect and engagement—no sloganeering or semantic sleights of hand in sight. I was impressed at how deep every group went on this topic: If we can discuss abortion civilly and respectfully, it gives me hope that we can discuss other less divisive political and legal issues in similar good faith.”
In full disclosure, this is why I joined Common Law Grounds. To many of us, the last few years (decades, even) have seemed like a never-ending cycle of outrage with little evidence of people having good-faith conversations to try to chart a path forward. This only empowers our elected officials to prevaricate and posture, inflaming their bases rather than working to find concrete solutions to pressing issues. Recognizing that surface-level conversations do nothing to improve our understanding of one another or find points of agreement from which we can build consensus means that we need to get out from behind our screens and engage with one another in more meaningful and personal ways. I would encourage anyone interested in strengthening our capacity for civil discussion to consider ways in which you can help, formally or informally. As future lawyers, we are in a unique position to help our society, and for all those who believe that a healthy and respectful discourse is essential to a robust democracy, discussions like the one held Tuesday provide a blueprint for progress that should encourage us.
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
[1] Do you see what I did there?