Recent months have seen a rekindling of the abortion wars, particularly in Catholic political rhetoric. In the process, we have seen that master narratives about abortion from both the Left and the Right can be equally pernicious.

This spring’s controversy at Notre Dame offered a clear glimpse of the Right’s master narrative, which equates Catholic identity with Republican political strategies and frames the politics of abortion in terms of a heroic crusade.  Now, in the wake of controversial late-term abortion provider George Tiller’s murder, we are also seeing rhetorical manifestations of a powerful master narrative from the Left, courtesy of the newly re-energized pro-choice movement. This narrative asserts that the only way to be a progressive is to accept the status quo on the rhetoric of “choice.” Both narratives frame abortion politics in terms of conflict, pushing respectful dialogue and common ground solutions – like President Obama called for in his Notre Dame commencement address – further out of reach.

A master narrative, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, is a familiar and compelling cultural story that, when invoked, adds legitimacy to systems of knowledge, and thus whole ways of looking at the world. For example, the pro-life movement’s discourse has been dominated by a master narrative using militant rhetoric and invoking cultural myths about a holy crusade and a heroic battle.  Such rhetoric positions opponents as enemies of the good to be defeated and with whom compromise would be a moral failing. This makes it considerably harder for opposing sides in the abortion debate to collaborate on common ground solutions.

Now, in the aftermath of George Tiller’s murder, some angry pro-choice voices have invoked their own, compelling master narrative of women’s dignity and liberation, equating these values with the pro-choice position. Thus, to not be in lock step with the pro-choice lobby is to be against women (much as, according to the dominant discourse of the pro-life movement, to not be in lock step with the pro-life lobby is to be against goodness). In addition, because there is a “with us or against us” component to this rhetoric, to focus on common ground solutions to the abortion quagmire, like reduction strategies, is to lack progressive bona fides.

For example, in a much-read June 1 post, Daily Kos diarist Elise writes:

If you support a woman’s right to choose then don’t call yourself ‘pro-life’ because you are not. You are pro-choice. You should call yourselves pro-choice…. Stop using their misleading rhetoric. You’re either pro-choice or anti-choice. PICK A SIDE.

Such language insists upon an “us vs. them” mentality that mirrors the “good vs. evil” approach of militant anti-abortion discourse. It demonizes those with different views, thereby leaving no room for collaboration or dialogue.  Just like militant pro-life discourse, this pro-choice rhetoric is premised on fear and distrust of other positions.

Catholics for Choice has appealed to this master narrative in their reaction to Alexia Kelley, founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), being appointed Director of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services.

CACG, along with Catholics United and Catholic Democrats, have worked to promote Catholic Social Teaching in the public square, and to thereby call into question the Right’s stranglehold on Catholic identity – albeit in different ways, since amongst these, only Catholic Democrats is a partisan organization. All have argued that the debate around abortion needs to be reframed in terms of common ground reduction strategies. Under Kelley, CACG published an important study linking socioeconomic factors to abortion rates, helping to make the case that voting for progressive political candidates could do more to reduce the abortion rate than continuing the shouting match over Roe v. Wade that has characterized abortion politics for more than 30 years. In other words, CACG, in collaboration with other faith-based progressive groups, has made important inroads into ending the culture wars by bringing disparate sides together based on shared goals and values.

However, Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, asserts in a June 4 press release that

Ms. Kelley’s appointment would be a defeat for reason and logic and calls into question whether President Obama’s administration is serious about reducing the need for abortion…. A look into Alexia Kelley’s leadership of CACG reveals a vehement antichoice stance that is focused on reducing the number of, not the need for, abortions…This language around reducing the number of abortions should be a huge red flag to anyone who believes in and seeks to defend a woman’s right to choose.

Such a statement demonstrates an insidious narrative in which all discussions about abortion can be reduced to the amorphous value of “choice.” According to O’Brien, progressive Catholics’ insistence that the debate surrounding abortion needs to be reframed is simply smoke and mirrors obscuring an “anti-choice” agenda – in the same way that pro-life leaders have tended to characterize that same reframing as hiding an “anti-life” agenda.

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes collaboration and common ground between differing points of views hard, if not impossible, to achieve. In the end, it shows that the Right does not have a monopoly on dangerous master narratives with serious political ramifications.

NOTE: Some potentially effective counterstories to this master narrative of the Left have emerged, including pro-choice author Cristina Page’s recent Huffington Post piece on the Kelley appointment. This piece by Ross Douthat in the New York Times may also qualify as a counterstory.