Supreme Court ruling reinforces need to understand

For the past week, we Americans have struggled with how to relate to one another. On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In the Dobbs case, the Supreme Court overturned its prior ruling that the U.S. Constitution’s implied right to privacy included a right to abortion in certain circumstances. In the days since that ruling, we have seen both celebration and sorrow, with those on different ends of the political spectrum having very different reactions to the ruling. What we have seen very little of is any attempt to understand those on the other side.
Issues like abortion are difficult to talk about. The questions surrounding abortion are often decided based on deep seated questions of belief. Whether you are for or against it, your position probably derives from a fundamental belief about something like freedom or life or autonomy that make it difficult to hear and understand those with a different perspective. This is not limited to religion, although religious views undeniably play a significant role in the abortion debate. Those in favor of access to abortion typically come to their position based on questions of belief just as much as those opposed. As a result, conversations about abortion are uncomfortable because they often involve disagreements about ideas that the participants believe to be fundamental truth. As humans, we instinctively try to avoid the cognitive dissonance that conversations like this cause. We try to either avoid the uncomfortable conversations or only have those conversations with those who agree with us. This is an unhealthy response.
Now more than ever, it is important that we have the uncomfortable conversations. It is especially important that we have those conversations with the goal of understanding where the other side is coming from, even if we are not convinced of their ultimate position. We often hear talk of the need to unify our country. I agree with the sentiment, but those who talk about unifying our country often aim to do so by converting everyone on the other side over to their own way of thought. While it certainly would make for easier conversations, in a nation as large and diverse as the United States, it is unrealistic to believe we all will think the same way, even on very important issues. What actually needs to happen to unify the nation is a concerted effort to understand the viewpoint that you oppose. If you can do that, it becomes very hard to see the other side as an enemy and opens the opportunity to seek common ground.
In practical terms, this means that those who oppose abortion need to try to understand the very real concerns that lead people to be in favor of it. For example, bodily autonomy — and especially female bodily autonomy — is a real and valid thing to be concerned about. Similarly, those who support abortion access need to understand the very real and valid reasons that lead people to oppose it. Concerns about human life are real. Concerns about devaluing human life and using abortion as a surreptitious method of making subject judgments about who is deserving of life — especially those with genetic abnormalities or diseases — are real, and pro-abortion citizens must try to understand them. Even if neither side is convinced by the other, understanding the “why” of how the opposing side thinks will lead to better and more empathetic conversations. 
Just as important as the attempt is the attitude. This effort to understand must not be merely an attempt to set up a strawman to knock down. There is no value in making the other side into a caricature with poor arguments that you can mock or villainize. Rather, when we genuinely try to understand, we will likely find that what separates us is less than we think. While it is hard to picture on hot button issues like abortion, it is likely true. Polling indicates that among the American public, there are very high levels of support (80%+) for access to abortion in instances of rape, incest, and for the life of the mother. The public has similarly high levels of support for bans on abortion in the third trimester. At the same time, there are certainly areas of profound difference. The question of when human life is entitled to protection on its own is a question that we will wrestle with for a long time. The intertwined question of what level of responsibility or autonomy a woman has regarding a fetus that results from consensual sexual activity is also a debate that we will undoubtedly be having for years and years to come. Hopefully, those having that debate begin by trying in good faith to understand the opposing position. Even if we never reach a definitive solution, our country will likely end up in a better place for the effort.
 
Khale J. Lenhart is a partner at Hirst Applegate, where he has practiced since 2011. His practice is focused on civil litigation, including professional liability, personal injury, product liability and trucking law. Khale has argued before the Tenth Circuit Court of appeals and multiple times before the Wyoming Supreme Court, and has appeared before Wyoming federal and state courts.