I almost did not open the e-mail asking me to write for this blog. I thought it was spam.

I’m not used to getting e-mails from people soliciting my opinion on reproductive rights. I am an unlikely candidate for pundit. I’m a working-class mother, a doula, a high school drop-out, whose primary source of news is Facebook. I do not generally voice my opinions; debates on reproductive rights usually seem to give women like me pretty shallow treatment.

Then I read a blog post on the website Religion Dispatches entitled, “Common Ground on Abortion—Or Appeasement of Foes?”  by The Rev. Dr. Carlton Veazey. It condemned Obama’s call for work on common ground issues like preventing unwanted pregnancies. It made me so mad that I had to join the website just to comment on it. And so when I got the invitation to write for the OnCommonGround forum I jumped at it.

Dr. Veazey is pro-choice and the President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. And though I support the legal necessity of abortion I disagree with pro-choice leaders like Dr. Veazey who view common ground as anti-choice.

Veazy believes that: “Achieving common ground will … diminish the ability of women to make decisions about abortion.”  Veazey seems to think common ground will hurt women. He continues, “That’s unacceptable. It’s unacceptable for even one woman to suffer in order for opponents of abortion to be appeased.” He never explains why common ground will lead to women’s suffering. “We should not sacrifice women’s lives in the service of calming controversy and tempering anger over an issue that has become political.” His prediction sounds scary, but he fails to make his case that reducing unintended pregnancies and increasing access to the options of adoption and parenting is somehow bad for women. When it comes to common ground, my view is that he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No pun intended.

In my work and personal life, I have listened to hundreds of women’s stories about their pregnancies outside the context of politics. It’s clear to me that women do not have abortions (as is often suggested by the pro-life movement) because they are ignorant, careless, or murderous. But is also clear to me, that decisions about abortion are not just as Dr. Veazey writes, “private and individual, a matter of conscience.” Our decisions are dictated by the circumstances of our lives-poverty, racism, rape, crappy job opportunities, to name a few.

And that’s where common ground must start, with the circumstances of women’s lives.

Here, off the top of my head, are some common ground ideas that could further reproductive justice, not erode it.

• Take away barriers to access abstinence, birth control, parenting, or adoption;

• Advocate for living wage jobs for mothers and for workplace flexibility so they have time to be mothers, and for quality childcare so that parenting is a safe, sane, affordable option for working class families;

• Create ethical, accessible adoption that is responsive to the needs, concerns, and rights of birth parents;

• Create scholarships and subsidized childcare for student parents so that decisions about pregnancy aren’t made for the wrong reasons, like having to forego education;

• Offer free, effective, on-demand substance abuse treatment which can reduce the unintended pregnancies instead of punitive drug policy that destroys families;

• Create a viable social safety net that ensures no American child goes without basic needs, thereby reducing abortion for the sole reason of poverty;

• Launch a public relations campaign to transform the cultural shaming of poor, single, and young mothers, affirming the beauty and potential of all families, reducing abortion for the sole reason of shame;

It is time for reproductive justice advocates to put forward a common ground agenda, not because it is politically advantageous, but because it is morally just. We need to hold accountable the hypocrisy of politicians, often pro-life, who help create the social conditions that contribute to our high unintended pregnancy and abortion rates.

Dr. Veazey’s position and the wider pro-choice movement’s condemnation of common ground illustrate the great failure of the pro-choice movement to understand the complexity of women’s personal choices. The importance of women’s individual stories, deeply personal and poignant, are done a disservice by those who think that abortion is only a personal decision.

Feminists of conscience must be willing to face complexity, and work with anyone else who will do the same. Achieving common ground will be accomplished by addressing the root and systemic issues that inform and interfere with our ability to choose. Common ground presents the first chance that voices of women like me, and our issues, will be included in the mainstream abortion debate.