As I end my time on Legal History Blog, there is
another issue worth discussing: the challenges of writing the history of an
issue as divisive as abortion. Some of the obstacles I faced were practical.
Most major archives contain very little on the antiabortion movement. Even
promising libraries often did not resemble the ones I expected. I once visited
the basement of a convent undergoing construction and was left completely
unsupervised. Luckily for the nuns, I had no intention of leaving with boxes of
archival material in my bag.
Other challenges were personal. Like many scholars, I had my own opinions about abortion. To a greater extent than I had realized, I often had preconceived ideas about the activists on either side of the struggle. Telling their story fairly and without judgment was not always easy. Conducting oral histories with many activists helped me cut through my own fixed ideas about abortion.
Finding the language to
discuss abortion history in person or in writing could also be difficult. I
wanted to talk in a way that would not misrepresent who I was or what I
thought, but I also wanted to create a comfortable, nonjudgmental environment
for activists already distrustful of anyone asking to talk. In spite of these challenges,
hearing activists describe their journeys helped me set aside some of the
stereotypes I had relied on. Many of these activists were generous with their
time. Some sent me personal papers or recorded oral histories. A few have
passed away since I spoke with them and before I could properly thank them for
their help.
Presenting historical
work on this subject can be as hard as writing it. Once, in discussing my work
on compromise after Roe, one audience
member asked me whether it would be good a thing if “we” could compromise with
“them.” I was not sure which side of the abortion issue my questioner took, but
in discussing a subject that arouses so much passion, I was not surprised that
discussion immediately turned from historical to normative questions about
abortion. Something similar happened in media reviews. Some only briefly
discussed what the book said before moving on to what the law ought to do.
But I think it is the
dominance of normative questions about abortion that makes it so important for
historians to study the law and politics of reproductive health. Much of this
legal history remains to be written.
