Moving From Judgement to Empathy: Lessons From the States

By Margaret Conway, Lydia Stuckey and Kirsten Moore

Anyone who reads the news or follows politics knows that this country is increasingly portrayed as divided starkly down the middle on most issues, and abortion is no exception. Nuanced rhetoric is thrown out of the window for combative sound bites that boost readership or ratings. In truth, though, we know the reality of how people feel about reproductive health issues — including sexuality, unintended pregnancy, and abortion — is quite complex and can change over a person’s lifetime. For example, many people who are not strongly either pro- or anti-choice may believe an abortion can be both a source of grief or regret, and also be the right decision for a woman to make. People may sincerely believe life begins at conception, yet vote to keep abortion free from restrictions. Abortion is often described as “the best decision in a bad situation,” yet this common sentiment is rarely acknowledged by talking heads and thought leaders on either side of the political spectrum.

The Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP) invests in cutting edge, multi-disciplinary research to identify new communication approaches to help reproductive health, rights, and justice advocates connect with individuals who do not fall firmly on one side or the other of the abortion debate. Our goal is to use empathy-based messages to create a space in which our audience can reflect on the complexity of a woman’s situation; support policies that allow a woman to make the best decision for herself; and reject restrictions on women’s options around pregnancy, childbirth, and abortion. We call the framework for this work “Moving from Judgment to Empathy.” This phrase reflects a key problem — the spectacular tendency of people to judge a woman who experiences an unplanned pregnancy — and a key strategy — an effort to move people to a more empathetic position where they are less likely to judge a woman’s decision based on preconceived stereotypes about women who experience an unintended pregnancy and seek abortion.

The core features of the “Moving from Judgment to Empathy” framework are to:
• Make a connection with the listener by acknowledging deeply held beliefs and using language like “we” and “us,” instead of “you” and “them;”
• Put abortion into the context of a woman’s life by focusing attention on the decision to become a parent;
• Talk about a woman and her decision-making process; and
• Evoke empathy for her decision, while resolving that because the decision whether or not to become a parent is so very personal, you can not make it for anyone else
• Ground these strategies in strong lobby, grassroots, and media capacities.

In 2009, RHTP partnered with allies in state-based reproductive rights and justice organizations to apply this empathy-based approach to policy debates related to abortion. Advocates using elements of the empathy message framework successfully defeated attempts to restrict access to abortion in states as varied as South Dakota, Colorado, West Virginia, South Carolina, and Missouri. RHTP asked our state partners to reflect on how the empathy framework was used in their communication strategies, and what the outcomes were. These “lessons learned,” detailed below, validated some early research findings and provided some entirely new insights.  

Lesson One: To connect with and persuade an audience, acknowledge the emotions, experiences, and multifaceted reasoning people have about such complex topics as abortion.

Whether they were engaging in a legislative lobbying visit or educating college students, pro-choice advocates found that acknowledging that people disagree and have strong feelings about abortion, pregnancy, and women’s decision-making helped foster discussion and counteract polarization and discord. This happened both in community forums with sizable audiences, and in one-on-one meetings.

For instance, one advocate reported that first identifying and naming shared concerns about women’s health helped greatly during her lobby visits, and encouraged legislators to take her policy recommendations more seriously. A good example of this comes from testimony by advocates in South Carolina, “Politics may put us on separate sides, but if we take a step back, before politics takes hold and distorts things…we all start in more or less the same place, on the same side. We all want strong, safe families where every child has the chance to thrive and prosper. And we all want a society that protects and values a woman’s life and health.” In extremely hostile situations, this approach diffuses tension, calms aggression, and allows pro-choice advocates be heard. This, in turn, often proves disarming to our opponents and creates a message that is difficult to oppose. It also sometimes had the effect of marginalizing our opponents by making them look extreme.

Lesson Two: Keep women’s decision-making central.

One advocate noted the unmistakable impact of shifting her pro-choice messages from the theoretical, abstract realm of policy to more personal, real-life stories. Sample language to do this includes: “We can all feel for a woman struggling to make the decision that is best for her circumstances. And, because each situation is different, we must protect a woman’s ability to make her own decision in consultation with those she trusts.”  In legislative testimony, interviews, lobby visits, and other areas, painting a compelling picture of a specific woman who is going through the process of deciding whether or not to continue her pregnancy had a profound effect. It normalized women’s experiences, making them much more accessible to legislators, reporters, and the public — and increasing the likelihood of generating an empathic response.

Lesson Three: Promote core values as part of the message.

Each of our partners emphasized the importance and value of reminding audiences about their organization’s core values, such as protecting the woman and her family, improving access to health care, and respecting personal decision-making. Take this talking point, for instance: “In West Virginia, we have a strong and important history of supporting a pregnant woman in making her own decisions, even if those are decisions we don’t necessarily agree with.” Incorporating core values while developing the message framework resulted in messages that engaged the audience at a deeper level than a mere policy debate could.

Lesson Four: Develop a message framework early and incorporate it into every part of the strategy.

This may seem obvious, but this goal can be one of the most difficult to achieve in today’s speed-of-light world of state legislatures and advocacy. Each of our state partners noted that, when they took the time to craft an effective message framework, it became a valuable strategic pillar of their efforts, and one that they returned to time and time again in fact sheets, speeches, testimony, and other communications. This message discipline yielded some pleasant surprises for advocates. One noted that it was helpful in recruiting new supporters; another adapted theirs for communications for their organization’s annual fundraiser. Most importantly, however, message saturation helped to create an “echo chamber” and achieve one of the holy grails of communication – hearing the messages taken up by grassroots supporters and policymakers themselves. For example, grassroots activists in South Carolina used the messages in personal letters to state legislators asking them to reject abortion restrictions.

Lesson Five: It is never just about framing or messages: it is essential to have a strong lobby, grassroots, and media capacity.

The importance of incorporating your message framework into a strong capacity in field, lobbying, and media relations cannot be shortchanged. Some specific tips that our partners highlighted in these complementary areas related to messaging include:
• Use a variety of messengers and know which messengers will be best heard by certain audiences.
• Understand the realities of being “pigeon-holed” as the “abortion rights advocates,” and the impact this can have on effectiveness of your message.
• Engage coalition partners and understand whether and when their delivering the message will be more effective.
• Know your audience.

Conclusion

Working with state partners validated that using a values-based message framework that meets people where they are and evokes empathy for a woman’s decision-making around abortion is compelling and can lower the volume during a contentious policy debate. We also learned that the messages cannot win the day alone. While the words, facts, and talking points we use as messages to make our case are important, to be truly effective they should be cohesively embedded into each part of an organization’s strategy. We hope this work helps reorient how advocates communicate, by showing how they can model non-judgmental attitudes, engagement, and compassion, a progressive vision to which we all aspire.

This article is adapted from Persuasion in the Heartland: Conservative States, Empathy Frames, and Support for a Women’s Decision Making. For more information about RHTP’s abortion message research work and to read case studies of the inspirational work done by advocates in Missouri, South Carolina and West Virginia, please visit www.judgment-to-empathy.org.

Margaret Conway is the principle of conway.strategic, an integrated communications strategy firm. Lydia Stuckey is a Senior Associate for Programs and Policy at the Reproductive Health Technologies Project along with Kirsten Moore, the President and CEO. Margaret, Lydia and Kirsten work as a team to produce innovative messaging approaches to promote public support of women's reproductive health decision-making.