Abortion is one of the most contentious issues in modern American politics, with activists on both sides sticking strong to their convictions. But a local pro-choice leader says that the future of the abortion debate lies in finding common ground between the warring camps. She looks to recent activities in South Dakota as perhaps providing a template for finding that ground.

"Bridging the political divide doesn't mean bringing everyone over to your side. It means we have to meet in the middle," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, in a presentation Wednesday at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute.

Stoesz said that the experience of abortion rights activists in fighting South Dakota's ban on abortion gave pro-choice forces a new avenue to advance their cause.

"The campaign [in South Dakota] was not about converting each other," she said, "but about having a conversation with the other side."

Litigation "Paternalistic"

Stoesz recounted the battle in 2006 over a sweeping abortion ban passed by the South Dakota legislature. She said the ban, which included exceptions only to save the life of a pregnant woman, was meant to bring about a court challenge. Its supporters hoped it might provide a vehicle for finally getting the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark decision that established a woman's right to make private decisions about ending or continuing a pregnancy.

"It's important to note that Governor [Mike] Rounds vetoed this bill in 2005 because he did not think the Supreme Court would uphold the ban," said Stoesz, adding that by 2006, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the court had moved to a more anti-abortion stance.

"There was an assumption by the state that Planned Parenthood would litigate," said Stoesz. But she said that activists on the ground convinced Planned Parenthood to take their case to the voters instead.

"The day the ban was passed, even before it was signed, our phones began to ring in a way they never had before," Stoesz said. "People came forward and said, 'We do not want you to litigate the ban. We want the opportunity to override it.'"

Pro-choice activists used South Dakota's initiative and referendum system to put the measure to a vote, describing the bill's draconian ban as "extreme."

But Stoesz said that foes of the ban succeeded because they tried to unite, instead of dividing.

"As outraged as people were by their perceptions about what the legislature had done, this election was not about anger," she said.

Stoesz said it was important for pro-choice activists to acknowledge that abortion is a wrenching issue for many. "We believed that the people in South Dakota, while morally ambivalent about abortion, did not want it banned." Stoesz cited a number of ban opponents who considered themselves "pro-life and pro-choice," including one couple who shared their story after being forced to selectively reduce a twin when the pregnancy developed complications.

Stoesz said that it was "ethically wrong" to go straight to litigation, saying, "It can be very paternalistic.

"It's a mistake to do things the way we've been doing," she said. "It does nothing to change the culture."

Stoesz said that because pro-choice activists took their case to the citizens of South Dakota, "People in that state now see and can publicly talk about abortion in shades of gray, rather than in shades of black and white. The conversation was difficult, it was painful, I do not want to go through it again anytime soon, but ultimately, we learned a lot from it."

"There Ought to Be a Coming Together"

Stoesz was joined after her address by Steve Sviggum, the commissioner of Labor and Industry, a former Republican leader in the Minnesota Legislature and a long-time abortion opponent. Sviggum joked, "I put myself in some jeopardy this evening, being one of the 'nonbelievers,' as Sarah calls me."

Sviggum agreed that it was better to seek balance than to harden battle lines. "There is room, and there ought to be a coming together on a lot of issues in this country, this being one of them."

Sviggum added, "It's a tough thing to do at times. When Senator [Roger] Moe and I were on forums together back when he was the Democratic leader in the Senate, we tried to outdo each other in using the words 'balanced' and 'responsible.' "

Sviggum did congratulate Stoesz for victory in South Dakota, saying, "You have to give credit to another side that wins the day on an important issue," and conceded that the sweeping nature of the South Dakota ban hurt its chances with the voters.

Noting that pro-choice activists had called the measure "extreme," Sviggum said, "The definition was there and it stuck, and maybe rightfully so, when you consider no exception for rape, and for health, and only the life exception."

But Sviggum said he doubted Planned Parenthood would be willing to go back to the people in 2008.

"If the legislature was to pass a bill…to allow for the exceptions of life, health of the mother, I wonder what Planned Parenthood's reaction would be?"

Some Distance Remains

Star Tribune writer columnist and editorial writer Lori Sturdevant moderated a brief question-and-answer session with both Sviggum and Stoesz. "What do you say to activists who believe that there is a tension between things that are constitutionally protected versus those protected by a simple majority?" she asked Stoesz.

"What we did served to preserve that constitutional right," said Stoesz, arguing that the Supreme Court might have upheld the South Dakota ban. "We have seen a number of rulings in the past four years that have made us wonder" about the court's current position on abortion, Stoesz added, saying that the vote in South Dakota had "ratified" the right to abortion.

Asked if South Dakota's experience provided a model for other states, Sviggum said, "I think it's true, as Sarah says, that the courts are in a state of change on this issue. At the end of the day, the citizens get it right."

Stoesz allowed that the states may have found a way to legislate responsibly had the Supreme Court not ruled as it did in Roe vs. Wade, and Sviggum took the opportunity to advance what he thought was a reasonable compromise.

"They would have come together to say reasonably, come together for life of the mother, health of the mother, but not partial-birth or for birth control."

When Sviggum suggested that Planned Parenthood should agree to that, Stoesz politely declined.

Sviggum argued that Planned Parenthood is likely to turn to litigation immediately in 2008 if, as expected, the South Dakota Legislature tries again with a less-sweeping ban. But Stoesz disagreed.

"I think the strategy would have been different in 2006, but this election has been transformative," Stoesz said. "I think that we will probably see a ban coming forward in South Dakota, but we will argue this on very different terms."

Still, Stoesz did not foreclose on the possibility of litigation to defend abortion rights.

"We can't close the door on litigation forever and ever," she said.

And that, ultimately, is the template that advocates of abortion rights need to follow. The South Dakota experience was an important and transformative experience for the pro-choice movement. Winning a rejection on an abortion ban in one of the most anti-abortion states in the union proved that citizens would not back an outright prohibition on the practice.

But what has not been proven is that a softer abortion ban would not pass in some states, including South Dakota. One would expect anti-abortion forces to be smarter in 2008, to pass the sort of bill Sviggum recommended, one with more exceptions, but one that is still draconian. Stoesz makes a good case to be made that pro-choice activists should first contest such a ban at the ballot box. But at the same time, the Supreme Court has determined that abortion is a constitutional right, and pro-choice activists cannot be afraid to use the courts when the ballot breaks down. After all, the courts are part of the American government too.