Agreeing To Disagree

In November of 1997, an Alaska Supreme Court judge ruled that under the privacy clause of the state constitution, the quasi-public hospital had to permit abortions. The judge reasoned that ""surely "few things are more personal' than a woman's control of her body, including the choice of whether and when to have children.'' My family realized that the lawsuit had both political and social consequences. On a national political level, Alaska has joined a handful of states to define reproductive freedom as a fundamental right. Early this year an article in The Washington Post about the effects of Roe v. Wade mentioned the case as an important development in the protection of abortion rights.

Locally, the abortion debate shows no signs of abating. But people continue to shop at the same grocery store, attend the same schools and stand in line at the same movie theater. Our community is too small to serve as the stage of a political drama, its actors permanently divided by hate and intolerance. The only way we can escape lasting conflict and resentment is by calmly discussing the issues that divide us. With that realization, my mother has worked with conflict-resolution groups and organizations such as Common Ground for Life and Choice to help heal the wounds opened by the lawsuit.

In the last few years, I have reached an unspoken agreement with my pro-life friends. We talk passionately about everything--except abortion and political/religious issues. When we shift to those topics we tread carefully, wearing the grave masks of academics. The arrangement works. We even consult each other, in a detached manner, on the viewpoints of ""the opposing side.'' In a civics course last year, a close friend and I both chose abortion rights for our final projects. I felt something between a thrill and a giggle when she called after school one day and said, perfectly solemnly, ""Sarah, what is the legal definition of abortion?''

LEMAGIE, 16, LIVES IN PALMER, ALASKA.

© 1998