Let's Find Common Ground - The Abortion Talks: They Found Respect, but not Common Ground. Frances Hogan, The Rev. Anne Fowler

Episode Date: May 11, 2023

We speak with two women from opposing sides of the bitter and often toxic debate over abortion. Frances Hogan and The Rev. Anne Fowler were involved in a series of years-long intensive, secret talks. Their candid conversations began after a gunman opened fire at two Massachusetts abortion clinics nearly thirty years ago. The attack left two women dead and five people injured.   In this episode, we learn the extraordinary story of how Anne and Frances gained a much deeper understanding and respect for one another. They didn’t change their views about the abortion issue, but they did become friends.  We share moments of compassion, kindness, and humor. Both Frances and Anne were among those profiled in the new documentary, "Abortion Talks", about what happened after the deadly attacks. On "Let's Find Common Ground", both of them explain how incredibly difficult it was to be part of many hours of exhausting conversations. We hear how they learned to overcome fear, stereotyping, misunderstandings, and anger.  Please tell us what you think! Share your feedback in this short survey. For every survey completed, we’ll plant 5 trees.  Common Ground Podcast Feedback Survey (qualtrics.com)

We start in 1994. Two women were murdered at two abortion clinics in Brookline, Massachusetts. Five people were injured. The killer was caught, found guilty, sentenced. Justice was done. And then something happened that might have seemed impossible before those terrible crimes. Leaders on both sides of the abortion debate met together for a series of secret talks. We hear from them now. We definitely were told that we were not to go in to try to change the minds of the other side. And for myself, it was extremely difficult for me to do that

because I wanted to change their minds. I would trust my life to any one of the women. I felt like we had each other's backs. We were respectful of each other's position, and we certainly became very fond of each other. This is Let's Find Common Ground. I'm Richard Davis. And I'm Ashley Mellntite. Right after the murders of the clinics, both sides of the fierce and furious debate over abortion were shocked. Clinic doctors and workers felt their lives

were endangered. And the leaders of the anti-abortion movement spoke out against that terrible violence. We speak here with the Rev. Anne Fowler, an episcopal priest who served on the board of directors for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. And lawyer Fran Hogan, she's been president of Women Affirming Life. They're among the women profiled in the new documentary, The Abortion Talks. You know Richard, it took years for the women to go in the new documentary, The Abortion Talks. You know Richard, it took years for the women to go public and explain what they've been discussing and why they met.

The first mention came in an opinion article in the Boston Globe. The headline was talking with the enemy. And in our interview with Fran and Ann, we also learn about what was and wasn't achieved in their many hours of conversations. We interview with Fran and Ann, we also learn about what was and wasn't achieved in their many hours of conversations, and why these discussions still have a lot of relevance to the abortion debate today. So both of you have come a really long way over the years. Can you tell me first, starting with you, and how and why did your meetings begin?

They began after the clinic killings in Brookline in 1994 when two planned parenthood staffers were killed in two different clinics. After that happened, then Cardinal Law, and then Governor Weld asked for a lowering of the rhetoric, a de-escalation of the provocative and sometimes rather violent rhetoric that was happening in the public sphere around this issue of abortion. And the public conversations project, which is a nonprofit in

Watertown, Massachusetts, had been doing work with dialogues. I'd been involved in a couple of shorter dialogues with them. Laura Chasen and Susan Paziba, who are our facilitators, interviewed a number of leaders in both sides of the movement and selected six of us. And that's how we got there. And Fran, you have your own version. Well, it's pretty much the same. We, on both sides, it was leaders of the two different movements, so to speak. And at the time I was, I'm serving in a leadership position as the other two women on the pro-life side were. And the day of the shootings, I actually knew the person who did the shooting. So I had been involved

in advising the state police who the shooter was at the time. And after that, we got these calls about the lowering of the rhetoric. Ian had participated in early a shorter dialogue. They had asked me to do that, and I would not participate in those shorter dialogues, and didn't want to participate in this one either. It was only through a lot of talking with people and thinking about it, that I decided to go ahead and participate with the hope that the rhetoric could be lowered and any violence on any side could be lowered.

As these conversations began, were both of you scared? I was not scared. I felt obligated and called as part of my ministry to participate. as part of my ministry to participate. Honestly, as I think back about what my reaction was and what my mood was going into the first meeting, I was more irritation than anything else. So why do we have to keep doing this? I was not scared physically.

I was scared that people might think that I was caving on my position on the issue. And I was afraid that that would hurt my movement, my side of the movement, so to speak. And that's part of the reason that at least I think among pro-life is we wanted this to be completely confidential. We didn't know what damage it might do to people on the front lines. So I wasn't physically scared, but I was nervous about the impact this might have. Well, yeah, I mean, these talks, certainly initially, maybe throughout what, there were top secret, right? And you met in the basement of a house somewhere in the Boston area.

And Fran, I think, at one point, your secretary had some suspicions about... Well, it might be good for you. You know where I was going, because we weren't telling people we were going. And I think she thought I was having an affair or something. It was crazy, because we really, really could only tell spouses, people that we were living with, and that was it. And that was very important. I don't think without that, I don't know,

cocoon, we would have been able to achieve what we did achieve. It had to be confidential. Friend and Ann, did you have preconceptions about the other side? And if you did, could you tell us what they were as opposed to how you feel now? I didn't expect them to be smart, you know, and they turned out to be

really smart, which was just added to my irritation. Because we were well matched. We were six people who were well matched. And I think the choice to engage leaders was not exactly political, but it was a public policy kind of decision, I think, on the part of public conversations. It was good for them to choose leaders because we all had experience with leadership in tough situations. I think I probably did have some preconceived notions.

Nikki Nichols' gamble, whom I like very much, was really an icon of the pro-choice movement. I think really known throughout the country for her leadership. Gamble was the president of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts at the time. And before I met her, I didn't like her because of the position she had. I did not know Ian before we met. I was not familiar with Ian at all. We had appeared on many different interview shows, our different events where they would have people from one side and the other side, but we really never clicked together. We sort of

knew each other, but didn't really talk to each other. It was that kind of a relationship. As opposed to today, we very much enjoyed the few times we have to get together and to share a meal and to share updates on family and so forth. It's a relationship now it never was before. share updates on family and so forth. It's a relationship now it never was before. Can I just dig in quickly into something to what you said Anne? When you said laughingly, I didn't expect it to be smart. Why not?

Well, because I think my main encounters with, I'm supposed to say pro life people was in the context of a protest where people were seem to me irrational and kind of cult like and not people that I would expect to be able to engage the way that our friends on the problem I've said to me now to be able to do. Was that disconcerting? That sense that you got them wrong or was it refreshing? That oh gosh, I'm we're across the table from people who are smart as opposed to what I thought they were. Well, it certainly made things a lot more interesting.

In a good way, I think, I wouldn't say refreshing. I think it took us a real while to get used to each other. I would say it could have took a good eight or ten meetings before we kind of hit our scribe. How long were these meetings usually? Oh, andless. There were supposed to be two hours and they rarely ended on time.

I'm kind of a watch witch. So I would always say it's eight o'clock at the long. Yeah, they were long and they were emotional. And you'd be wrung out at the end of the might think, especially in the beginning when we learned what we needed to call each other or what words we could use and not use in order to further the conversation. If we didn't have those facilitators it would never have happened I don't think. Absolutely. I said often that this was, I realized this was the closest I

was ever come to understanding what it was like to be in the early church where then people were gathered together in a basement room trying to decide as Jews and Christians or followers of the new Jesus movement, if they could be together. If Jews who wanted to convert could be admitted into the Jesus movement, and they were held together by liturgy, the service, and by food, by breaking bread together. And that's what we were doing.

We were in a basement room, we were secret, we were trying to figure out if we could stay together and we were eating meals together. And what held the people together in the first century was their liturgy. What held us together was those facilitators. Fran is right, we could never have done it without them. I want to know some of what you actually talked about.

I mean, your talks lasted unexpectedly a long time. They went on way beyond four or five meetings. They went on for several years, especially at the beginning. How were you even talking and what were you talking about? Well, at the very beginning, we had to come up with a vocabulary that we could use so that we could actually talk. And that took a long time. We would put up, yeah, it really did. We put on big sheets on the wall, we can't use one of the hot button terms that we ought

not use. And an awful lot of our vocabulary was stolen from us. So we had to learn how to speak about these issues in words that were not our normal way of speaking. We were all advocates for our positions and it was hard to put those words away and talk in a different way. Clearly the topic was not just abortion but it was how to lower the rhetoric so that violence no longer happens within the movement. And we had a big discussion, I remember, about the pro-choice people would speak of the

violence that happened, you know, when the murder's occurred and the shootings occurred. And we totally agreed with that. That was horrible violence. But from the pro-life perspective at the beginning, we talked about what we considered the violence done in the active abortion. So that would be one of the things in the very beginning that we talked about, but we went on to everything you can possibly imagine from one end of life to the other who would just throw overboard in a lifeboat. I don't know if you remember that conversation. It was everything you can imagine, partial birth abortion, we tried very hard to figure out some activity.

Maybe we could do together unrelated to abortion. We couldn't do that. The only thing we ever came up with was the article that we wrote for the globe. That was the best thing we could have come up with. I mean, we talk about like planning a tree or doing some public service or something like that, but the best thing that we came up with was the best thing,

which was to make, and we spent a long time deciding whether we could, as we kept putting, taking it out of the room. We spent a long time, and I think it's fair to say that the pro-life people were much more trepidacious about taking it out of the room. When you say taking it out of the room, you mean that as a result of your conversations, you took it out of the room and went public with this big article in the Boston Globe,

which was by far and away the largest newspaper in the region. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. That's right. And as a result of that, we got invited to, I can't even imagine how many places to speak from the Neiman Foundation at Harvard

to the Rhinebeck up in New York. And we were everywhere. The day, yeah, it was a little crazy. The day that we went with this, we figured no one was show up. They were going to have a press conference. No one was more shocked than we were. The room was full of media.

We had no idea the impact this would have. And from a pro-life perspective, purely from my perspective, it was the best thing because we were heard in places we never had access to before. We would never be invited to many of these places. Now, was it scary going to places, Ian will know this? Everybody in the room feels different than you do? Yes, it was. to many of these places. Now, was it scary going to places, Ian will know this, everybody in the room feels different than you do? Yes, it was. But I felt it was a real opportunity

to present a message that they just never heard before. So it was a great thing, I think. But it's ancient history now. It's a long time ago. But it does relate to what's going on today, which we're going to get to a little bit later in the conversation. But just to quickly go back to your developing relationships with each other over the years, because by the time that Boston Globe piece came out, it was early 2001, would you consider yourself friends by that point, the six of you? I would.

Would you mean? Oh, well, depends what you mean by friends. I think we were friendly acquaintances, fairly close acquaintances. There are some elements of real friendship that I have to say for myself we're lacking. But I think most important, we learned to trust one another. And to this day, I would trust my life to anyone of the women. I felt like we had each other's backs. We were respectful of each other's position in a lot of ways.

We were respectful of each other. And we certainly became very fond of each other. We had a lot of laughs and we went through a lot of different people's life experiences, death of spouses, death of siblings, birth of grandchildren, and those experiences forge deep relationship. That sounds great, but was there a moment, were there moments when somebody threatened to get up and walk out,

or there was a moment when you thought, oh gosh, this whole thing's just breaking apart, or we're gonna have a yelling match here. I don't think anybody ever threatened to walk out that I can recall. One of the things that they taught us to do, and it was a very important lesson for me, was to listen to what the person is saying, not preparing your response to what the person is saying,

and then saying back to them, because half the time, what you thought they said they didn't really say. And that was one of the gifts of these facilitators who taught us how to really listen and respond to what was actually said. I think that was a very good tool in their toolbox. Well, certainly that was true. I had had trouble, I think, really hearing the other point of view. And I think I want to be sure to say this. I think it was one of the great opportunities of my life

because we don't have many opportunities to sit with people with whom we disagree and talk almost exclusively about the very thing that we disagree about. And that is a gift that I wish I knew how to scale up. In the podcast that we've done on Let's Find Common Ground, we've had a number of guests who've said that, that if we're speaking or in a dialogue with somebody

who we disagree with, we need to listen to what they say before we really prepare a response in our minds. And so I think that's a very interesting point. But did either of you go into these discussions at any time, wishing to change the minds of the other side. Well, we definitely were told that we would not to go in to try to change the minds of the other side.

And for myself, it was extremely difficult for me to do that because I wanted to change their minds, knowing that wasn't gonna happen. But I did want to change their minds, but I think that the ground was made clear, we were not supposed to be trying to do that. Once you came to respect them and even like them, did you wish even more fervently that you could change their minds because you thought, oh, these are good people.

I did. I never gave up that hope, never, ever ever, never ever. But one thing that Ian said, we talked about respecting the persons each other. I did respect all the people involved, but we had a big discussion one time about the fact that I did not respect their position. I respected them as, you know, having dignity as human persons, but I did not respect their position. And there was a, a fairly hot discussion about that because they felt differently at least my recollection is that they felt differently, but I'd never changed my mind on that. I remember that. So, yeah.

Can you respect a person if you don't respect her position? I think was, well, we, you know, we struggled with. That's right. Yeah. That's right. But that's, that's where I came down, you know, yeah, that's right, but that's where I came down, you know. We're speaking with Anne Fowler, whose pro-choice and Fran Hogan, whose pro-life. This is Let's Find Common Ground. I'm Ashley. I'm Richard. If you're interested in learning more about the conversations that Fran and Anne were

part of, we recommend a new documentary. The film is called The Abortion Talks. You can learn more about it at their website, abortiontalks.com. As both women made clear in their conversations with us, they had facilitators who helped them work out, who would be involved in the discussions, how long they'd go on, and also some of the things that could and could not be mentioned. The non-profit group Essential Partners played a crucial role. Their website, WhatIsEssential.org, explains more about how they partner with civic, civil and religious groups to restore trust and understanding.

And again, the website for the abortion talks documentary is abortiontalks.com. Now back to our interview. And how did it feel as a member of the clergy working with the pro-life women, given that I'm assuming they claimed moral authority, you're a member of the clergy, that I mean, where does that leave you? I felt it left me in a particular hotspot. They always sing a little skeptical about, you know, this woman is a minister, she's a physical priest and she believes what she believes. And I asked them once quite far along if they thought I was a moral person and they could not answer that

question. And that was painful after everything that we'd been through together. Well just a couple of comments that one is that I think it's important at least for my perspective. The three of us were Catholic on the pro-life side, but I was not coming from a faith perspective. So in terms of moral authority, I never thought of it that way. It was just how I thought in a secular, reasoned way. But second of all, if my brother asked me if I thought he were a moral person,

I wouldn't answer that either in. I can't judge another person's morality. In my mind, each person has to judge his or her own morality. And that would be why I wouldn't comment on that. I don't know the fullness of any other person's life. Politically, we live in very heated times, perhaps more now than when you first came together. And so often the debate over abortion is framed by the media that as I know, having been a reporter for a long time, loves conflict and clashes, and highlighting the worst about

the other side can also be a good way for the two movements to raise funds and rev up their supporters. So what's wrong with the way the debate abortion is currently being framed? Well, it happens. I went to the main state house on Monday to support some bills that our governor has proposed on expanding access to abortion and removing certain restrictions that have been on the books for a long time. And there were 65 of us that had signed up to testify in support of these bills and 650 who

had signed up in opposition. And they had been bust in from all over. I mean, they were not all mainers. And I was waiting in line in this rainy cold day to go through security, and a man sort of ran down the hill where we were waiting, and said, call them baby killers. That's what they are. They're baby killers. And I had a moment of real panic, like I've rarely ever had, because he sounded like somebody who could kill somebody. He would kill a baby killer. And then I realized, well, if he started shooting,

he would shoot all the pro-lifers who are outnumbering me 100 to one. So I stopped worrying about it. But you know, that's not the way to go. That's something that should be reigned in by anybody who cares about making progress in finding common ground. From what do you think?

Well, I think that it happens both ways. We were having a match here on the Boston Common and we got called terrible names by pro-choice people. But I don't think they were representative of the entire movement. I would reject what happened to Ian completely. It's antithetical to everything that we've tried to do. And I think it's probably too on both sides. There was an inability to have these conversations that we had to try to see what could be done. It turns out there's not much we can do on the issue together because there is just no common ground on the issue without a doubt. But yelling and screaming is not furthering any conversation at all. As a pro-life person, I've worked toward what they

call incremental legislation without a complete being, trying to slowly, Ian would, I don't think, would agree with this, but slowly put on restrictions until we wound up with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But that's done, not by yelling and screaming. I don't think would agree with this, but slowly put on restrictions until we wound up with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But that's done not by yelling and screaming. I don't think Operation Rescue Data Sending Favours and I don't think calling people names does as any favors. And I think as a result of these conversations, as I mentioned before, we were able to get to places which probably only heard the people screaming baby killers, and which finally heard people who could articulate the position, I think, in a more positive and, you know, thoughtful way. Fran, you just mentioned the sort of the lack of common ground on this issue.

So those years that you were talking together, if you didn't find common ground, what did you find? We did not find common ground on the abortion issue whatsoever. You want to make sure you know that. Make sure it right, exactly. We did find the beauty and the dignity of all human life, even human life, with which we profoundly disagree. The importance to respect that human life,

as much as I respect the life of the unborn child or the person at the other end of life. In my mind, all those people have to be respected the same way. And because a person has a position I don't agree with, doesn't mean I don't respect and honor that person as a human being. Your conversations began in the 90s. Would it be even more difficult to start a chat around a subject as charged as this today than was the case when you began? Did you call it a chat. I think it would be the same. I mean, I would hope that people are as motivated today, as they were 20 years ago, to try to at least walk to one another. I mean people of good faith ought to be

as eager to do that as they worked with we worked 20 years ago and people ought to be very interested in facilitating such chats. I agree with the end on this. I think that it could be done. There are so many more issues that are dividing people today, even then 20 years ago. I mean, I have a brother who has a daughter who raises money for playing parenthood and one that's in the tea party. Same family. So, you know, when you're having dinner with people or talking with friends or family, often you disagree not just on this issue, but on a million other issues. And the TV and the media hasn't helped one single bit in my view. They, I think they like to rev it up to make it more exciting and more volatile or something. That was my experience with the media.

Throughout the interview, both of you have talked about the vital role played by the facilitators of your discussions, your conversations, not your chats. I stand corrected. What kind of role did they play? And do you think that when it comes to two sides on a very difficult issue coming together, that they need a facilitator. They need someone to maybe help them with the ground rules of the conversations. I certainly would say so. I would not embark on this kind of project without the reassurance

that somebody, if they were a container for us. Yeah, I totally agree with that. And that's the problem of having these conversations, because if you don't have anybody to facilitate them, you don't know how they're going to occur. But I do agree it could never have happened. Because they controlled us. No, they did.

I mean, they told us, but if we got out of line, they would bring us back in and so forth. And they allowed it to go along very slowly. It was a long time until we got to talk about real substance. I want to follow up on Richard's question. You've both said the conversations that you held years ago could be held now. But we do live in an incredibly polarized time. Could another group from different sides of an issue meet today the same way you did?

I think they could. You gotta remember we're in the middle of two murders and five shootings. It was extremely volatile at the time. And I do think that today it could be done. If I were in charge of the U.S. Congress, I would bring in a facilitator and try and have these guys talk to each other. Seriously, let them listen to what the other person is saying. They're missing that at that level.

And even on the different TV channels, whether it's right wing or left wing, there's no real genuine discussion about the content of different issues? I think the more the media can resist, if it leaves, it leads kind of journalism, and and have more spots and more discussions like you're providing. The examples of how we can have a conversation successfully without expecting to change other people's minds, but hoping to learn to understand where they are coming from. That would be a great service to the country. And I know people listen to the media that supports what they already think,

but there are some breakthrough situations. I just think the more encouragement that can be given to people of good faith trying to understand one another. I would hope that would have some of that. These on the whole were civil dignified conversations that you had with the help of your facilitators. What would you say you gained from them personally. For myself, I gained the opportunity to understand why I believe what I believe at a very deep level. When one speaks with people with whom one agrees, you tend not to even examine your belief system.

And I think what happened for me at least is I dug very, very deeply to understand what I believed and to understand the difference between what I might believe as a Catholic and supposed to what I might believe as a lawyer in a secular society, what was possible. So in that sense, I found it extremely an enriching experience. Well, part of what I gained, I gained very early on, which is just understanding about how I was getting thrown back the first century Christianity to development of Christianity. And I realized I live in a kind of bubble where I don't have to spend a lot of time with people that I don't agree with. I don't have to listen to them. My family and I are pretty much on the same page. My friends and I are.

So learning that I could love advice, I can't use the word, it's not advised. I'm advising myself that I love Fran and Madeline and Barbara. I don't know what's like them. I certainly don't believe them, but I love them. You hear it, Fran, I love you. I heard Joanne loud and clear. And as they say, I love you too. Fran Hogan and Anfala. That's our show.

Let's find Common Ground as a production of Common Ground Committee. We's find Common Ground as the production of Common Ground Committee. We have many Common Ground Podcast conversations and also other events at our website. Go to CommonGroundCommittee.org. I'm Ashley Meltaite. I'm Richard Davies. You know, we always say this, Ashley. And we mean it.

Thanks for listening. This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.