Every so often, it is necessary to return to a subject. In that vein, let us again discuss the coming Supreme Court decision that shows every likelihood of overturning the 49-year-old case of Roe v. Wade.

In early April, I wrote a column supporting a women’s right to choose, but making the case that being pro-choice was not synonymous with being pro-Roe. I went on in that piece to suggest that perhaps, just maybe, putting this issue back in the political sphere and away from judicial decree might lead to some slight narrowing of the differences and softening of uncompromising positions at both extremes.

Shortly after that column ran, Justice Alito’s draft opinion mysteriously leaked causing a national uproar that served as a precursor to what will again ensue in the coming weeks, or perhaps merely days, if that opinion or something close to it ends up being the ruling of the Court.

The smart bet is that will be the case.

Any columnist is advised to engage this issue with a dose of humility. There are few issues which are so intimate, so passionately-felt and so connected to core values. A wise, young, female friend counseled that any conversation on the topic be approached with the quiet assumption that the other party comes to it with their own very personal, very private story.

Discussions of abortion policy are almost invariably emotionally charged. The values that drive people on both sides of the debate border on the existential. They involve questions as to what constitutes life and when it begins as well as a woman’s autonomy over her very body and her reproductive choices.

A few – though fortunately small in number and even smaller in their thinking – have asserted that, as a man, I should keep my mouth shut and venture no opinion on the subject.

By that lame logic, only farmers could express a viewpoint on farm policy; only members of the military on defense policy; and only those with a driver’s license on the rules of the road. Such an assertion is not serious-minded and is not to be taken seriously.

Still, even modern gender theory cannot change some basic facts. Men help to create life, but women carry life and birth it. This debate will always be more personal and, yes, more consequential for them.

Since the Roe decision in 1973, no issue has contributed more to the rancorous division that now defines and paralyzes our country. In part, that is due to the nature of the issue; in part, it is a function of Roe removing the issue from the realm of political give-and-take and, effectively, invalidating one side of the debate.

Such silencing rarely smooths the waters or yields much silence.

If one regards abortion and reproductive freedom as a fundamental right on a par with, say, freedom of speech or voting rights or gay marriage, then it belongs in the judicial sphere and away from legislative prerogative.

For me, while I support the right to choice, albeit with hesitation after fetal viability, this is a subject for political debate, legislative action and maybe even compromise. That is how it is handled in most other western nations with disagreement, for sure, but without our level of never-ending acrimony and ill will.

If the Supreme Court indeed returns jurisdiction to the states, initial action is likely to go to the extremes depending on each state’s political complexion. Witness deep-red Oklahoma’s unyielding, absolutist ban recently enacted. Though, to be fair, also witness increasingly-blue Colorado’s open-ended permission literally up until the instant of birth.

However, the hope and prospect, perhaps naïve, is that political forces over time will push states to more realistic codes that include some semblance of balance and accommodation. Clearly, Indiana’s law will be more limiting than that in Illinois with the inequities that entails. But politics has a way, or at least it used to, of spurring compromise and nudging policies toward some center.

Both sides arrive here with grievance aplenty. Pro-lifers point to the demolition of Robert Bork and the introduction of a new verb, “to bork”, into the vocabulary. Pro-choicers counter with the cynical refusal of the Senate majority to even consider Merrick Garland’s nomination and then the double-standard of the rushed Amy Coney Barrett confirmation under very similar circumstances.

Those are but tips of the iceberg of resentment that each side carries in its DNA. The supply of anger is overflowing all around.

If there is a path out of this impasse and unending animus, it starts with an effort to understand the other viewpoint.

Those inclined toward the pro-life side need not abandon their beliefs, but might grapple with the fact that condoms break, other birth control occasionally fails, rape is real, so is domestic abuse, pregnancy complications develop, major fetal deformities happen, and not every woman is cut out to be a mother.

Conversely, those identifying as pro-choice can hold tight to their convictions, but let go of the insult that those of a different view are simply out to control women. At the same time, they might show some respect for the fervently held belief on the part of many, whether religious in its origins or not, as to the sanctity of life and when that life originates.

Pro-choice advocates might also think about reintroducing “rare” into the old, but recently discarded, formulation that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” They might also ponder what signal was sent in dropping any reference to the frequency of such a fraught procedure.

America is not about to give up its fierce debates over this issue. In the near term, those battles will intensify.

Accuse me of wishful thinking. But what a difference it would make if both sides brought a measure of generosity and grace to the discussion. Especially so in this heated, anxious moment.

That is always more productive than contempt. Who knows, but one day it might even lead to some sliver of reasonable, common ground.

Eric Sondermann is a Colorado-based independent political commentator. He writes regularly for ColoradoPolitics and the Gazette newspapers. Reach him at?EWS@EricSondermann.com; follow him at @EricSondermann.