Wanting Abortion to be More Accessible Rather Than More Rare Or Less Needed

AFTER FOUR DECADES OF FIGHTING OVER ABORTION RIGHTS, we are all tired: advocates, the public, politicians, clinicians.... everyone. We long for an end to the "abortion wars." President Obama calls for finding "common ground" though a strategy of reducing the need for abortion. His approach builds from a sentiment articulated by President Clinton in 1992 that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." These sentiments are shared within the broader pro-choice arena. After George W. Bush's election in 2001, the Guttmacher Institute (a reproductive health research organization known for studying the continual decline in the number of U.S. abortion providers) called on the new president to focus on making abortion "safe, legal, and rare." (1) And, in 2005, NARAL Prochoice America prioritized its work around a "prevention first campaign" to reduce the need for abortion." (2) What could be wrong about wanting abortion to be "rare" or seeking to "reduce the need for abortion?" These goals could be interpreted as efforts to make abortion unnecessary in a specific, individual woman's life. But, in fact, they are less about women's desire to avoid unintended pregnancy or abortion, and more focused on achieving a social compromise--one in which abortion remains legal but is less prevalent. Unfortunately, these strategies stigmatize not only women who seek abortion but also the clinicians who perform abortion, and threaten the health of women with the fewest resources and the least political power. This article describes the problems with efforts to make abortion more "rare" and to "reduce the need" for these services--henceforward abbreviated as the "rare need" approach.