In my last blog, I wrote about my relationship with Mr. Guy Condon, an anti-abortion activist who ran a number of crisis pregnancy centers across the country. I noted that we had been brought together by an organization called “Common Ground,” which has since closed its doors.
The folks at Common Ground had a very ambitious and, yes, “sexy” agenda. Their goal was to bring together parties on both sides of controversial issues in an effort to find areas of possible agreement. So, for example, with the abortion issue, they tried to craft an agreement on how to reduce the number of abortions. I don’t think they ever succeeded in that particular quest but for a while, this group was much in vogue, they got tons of publicity and lots of money from certain foundations. Ultimately, however, they were forced to shut their doors. Honestly, I don’t know what happened and I don’t have the energy to try to research the rise and fall of Common Ground. Suffice it to say that they are gone.
What many people never realized, however, was that every day there were similar efforts taking place on a smaller scale at the abortion clinics. No, anti-abortion and pro-choice folks were not sitting down and hashing out peace agreements or crafting joint legislation. But activists on both sides of the abortion issue were talking and have been talking for years.
The dynamic at an abortion clinic is fascinating. Generally speaking, the clinic staff people will arrive at the same time and they always know when their local protestors will be out there. Saturday is usually the biggest day as more women are able to get away from work to have an abortion. Normally, you would think that the staffers would just walk in and exchange harsh glances or even harsh words with the protestors. And, yes, in some cases the two sides just didn’t talk and, indeed, there was great animosity. But there were so many other instances where the clinic staff developed some kind of relationship with their protestors.
Over the years, clinic staffers would tell me how they would bring coffee out to their protestors on cold, winter days or ice tea in the middle of the summer. Others would actually invite their protestors into the clinic for a tour of the facility. Several clinic administrators told me that on occasion they would have lunch with the lead protestor in an effort to develop a mutual understanding of their work. Some clinic staff told me that they would have conversations with the director of the local anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center and even refer women to them if they felt it would be helpful. It was as if there was a general truce at these clinics and even a curiosity about that person on the other side of the fence.
I’ve already talked about how my relationship with Paul Hill might have saved the lives of a number of abortion providers in Pensacola in 1994. Of course, no one can prove that talking to the other side might prevented some kind of tragedy but many of the clinic administrators (or doctors) who regularly engaged with “the enemy” told me that the conversations resulted in a less tense environment outside the clinic. They said that after the protestors got to understand a little more about what motivated the clinic workers and the mindset of the women, the protestors were inclined to be less “angry.”
The fact is that activists on this controversial issue, and that includes abortion clinic staff, are usually pretty myopic when it comes to listening to arguments from the other side. They usually just listen to their leaders of their own movements, cite their studies, and regurgitate their talking points. They think that the other side could not possibly have anything meaningful to say, that they are all just out to lunch. So, both sides stick their heads in the sand, become intractable and, as a consequence, the tensions increase.
But because of the bravery of some people on both sides of the issue, peace broke out years ago at some of the clinics that slowed abortion providers and protestors to continue their work in a less-than-hostile environment.
In that regard, I think “Common Ground” worked.

June 17, 2010 at 7:21 am
if you go to a confrontation, like you said, of course you probably will be armed… that shows the weakness of your beliefs…
Abortion is not the goal of pro-life but force….
When you people decide that all of us has the rights of different opinions maybe the “confrontation won’t be needed anymore, but than how your pro-life partners will survive right!!!!
It’s all about who is the strongest, powerful in your opinion…
For me is who is the most fool… Force and confrontation will only generate fights that is not really needed…
Courage is like a muscle. We strengthen it with use.
Use yours!!!!
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 8:12 am
Sonia, #19 and 20 — still confused? I don’t know anything about that. Ask Pat.
And #1, above? Fluff.
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 8:37 am
As Pat what? I’m confused.
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 8:39 am
RE post #17 from John: are you armed when you go out there to the clinic or Jen’s house?
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 9:48 am
Ask Pat if she also thinks I wrote both Kathy’s post, #9, and my own, #10. And if she does, why? And if she doesn’t, why? I’m never armed, but I can’t speak for others. I’m the only one who goes to Jen’s house.
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Well John, i will try to be more clear… just do a test ok!
Write a message, any message with anything, than after posting your message with you name on it, write another message using a different name but same email…. than watch the magic… the little square figure that appears on the right side of the message will be the same, because that is counted by the same email user…. Voila
Got it??? Do the test and you will see, but please, be honest, use the same e-mail both times ok!!! Change only the name…. oh and before i forget, i don’t need to ask Pat anything, i am big enough to think for myself…. 🙂
Abortion will always be an alternative no matter what pro-life people do… with or without guns and confrontation abortion will always be there for those who look for!
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 1:15 pm
What makes you think I’m a “she”, John????
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Sonia, I’ll take your word for it. Still, I didn’t write #9.
Pat, because you write so good. I’m a feminist. I believe women are superior. I believe the greatest writers in our era are Dickinson, Austin, Eliot, Bronte, et al. Maybe there is another reason I thought you were a woman but I don’t remember it.
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 4:04 pm
My two cents’ worth: You’re well-spoken, intelligent, empathetic, able to express emotion. . . If you’re not female, you must at least have chosen to be gay!
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Why do I keep appearing as “Anonymous”?
LikeLike
June 18, 2010 at 7:52 am
hmmmm, very interesting analysis of me! And, John, in post #10 on my end, it clearly says “John Dunkle”.
LikeLike
June 18, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Yeah, but Sonia says I also wrote comment #9, too, the one signed “kathy”!
LikeLike
June 19, 2010 at 9:30 pm
What a great way post. Common ground will work. The goal of pro-lifers is not always to make abortions illegal, but to decrease the increasing numbers.Is this not also the goal of pro-choicers?
LikeLike
June 20, 2010 at 4:22 am
Ryan, so-called “pro-lifers” are NOT interested in simply decreasing the number of abortions– if they were, they wouldn’t be against contraception. If they were, they wouldn’t argue so vociferously from the viewpoint that the fetus is an “unborn innocent.” They purely and simply want things to be entirely their way– no abortion, no contraception, no sex education, no birth control available to minors.
The reason for this is that they are irresistibly driven by aborticentrism– a focus on fetal life to the impairment of their own ability to care for real human life. Google the term to learn more about it. As long as they can persuade you that they want only to reduce the number of abortions, they have your support in imposing their emotionally unhealthy agenda on all America.
LikeLike
June 20, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Ryan, I believe that our common goal is to reduce the number of abortions. Yes, CG might be right in his in-depth analysis of the pro-life mentality but the bottom line is we all wished every child was wanted.
LikeLike
June 20, 2010 at 2:02 pm
You might wish that, Pat, but they don’t. If every child were wanted, they’d be out of a job.
LikeLike
June 20, 2010 at 3:35 pm
All of us should watch the movie Zero Population Growth, and maybe get some GOOD ideas from it…
Birth control and sexual education should be mandatory…
That way abortion will not be an issue anymore…
LikeLike
June 21, 2010 at 8:23 am
People who wish every child is wanted,
should get out their and start adopting.
There are a lot of children that want to be wanted.
All the Catholics who leave their catholic hospital and spend 30k per month on infertility tratments at non catholic hospitals, could want a lot of wanted children.
They can all stop wishing and just do, and solve the dilemma. Instead the vast majority just “wish” and continue to enjoy their conspicuous consumption instead.
LikeLike
June 21, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Excellent point, Elena. I think it is so hypocritical that so many pro-lifers do not adopt themselves.
LikeLike
June 21, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I started RESPONSIBLE Right to Life as an association of “pro-lifers” who pledged to raise to adutlhood every “unborn human” they wanted “rescued.” I figured with 4 million of them adopting 4 babies every year forever, abortion would necessarily be a thing of the past. ( As it is, they aren’t even in the majority of the parents who DO adopt, which means they’re not even saving 160,000 children a year by adopting them).
Twenty-one years later, I’m still the only member. Sniff……
LikeLike