I wrote a column last week about the challenge for journalists in covering abortion because people are so dug in and don’t want any more discussion, and I heard from a bunch of people who want more discussion. I may regret this, but we’re going to attempt hosting such a discussion. We changed our podcast recording platform a few months back for Today in Ohio, where we discuss and analyze the day’s news. The new platform gives us the ability to have a live audience join us as we record, and it gives us the ability to welcome audience members into the conversation one at a time. So, let’s give it a try and have a discussion about abortion. Some caveats: The majority of Americans recognize a woman's right to an abortion within some limits, and that is the group we seek the engage. This conversation is not for people who are entrenched. If you think abortion is murder, we respect your position, but this conversation is not for you. If you believe abortion is an absolute right that should have no restrictions whatsoever, we respect your position, but this conversation is not for you. If the Supreme Court overturns a half-century of its precedents and ceases to recognize a Constitutional right to an abortion, the Ohio Legislature is on record saying it will quickly outlaw abortion. That most certainly will lead to Ohio voters being asked to change the state constitution to recognize a person’s right to an abortion. The framework for the discussion we envision is what that amendment should say. Many people believe abortion is a right until a certain point in a pregnancy. What should an Ohio amendment recognizing the right to abortion say about where that point is? Many people believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest. Would that alter the point in a pregnancy when abortion no longer should be permitted? What about when a pregnancy endangers a prospective mother’s health? What about when tests late in a pregnancy show a fetus will be born with challenging abnormalities? Should an amendment to the Ohio constitution be this specific? Should the amendment be so precise that anti-abortion lawmakers cannot pass laws to restrict it beyond the will of the voters? Or should the amendment be vague, recognizing a woman’s right to abortion but leaving it to lawmakers to set the rules? Is this a conversation you’d like to participate in? We’ve tentatively set the discussion for noon on Tuesday, June 7. We think the lunch hour might be best for working people. We’d aim to talk for 45 minutes to an hour, and we’d aim to limit guests to a minute each, so we could bring on as many as possible. I’ll host, to moderate the discussion, and I’ll be joined by Laura Johnston, one of our podcast regulars, whose role will be engaging with guests and reflecting on their contributions. We also hope to do some live polling of the guests, to see if we find consensus, and Laura will be handling that software. And, please, join in good faith only. We seek to have a conversation of people who are grappling with how to proceed on this issue, people who want to wrestle with a signature issue of our age and reach a consensus. If anyone joins as a guest in bad faith – meaning they are entrenched on a far side of the debate and want to use their time to proselytize -- we have the ability to cut them off and move on, and we will edit them out of the podcast before publishing it. We’ve not done this before, so I’m sure we will have glitches and unforeseen challenges. We’ll ask you to bear with us, as we’ll be learning here. If you’re interested, send me an email at cquinn@cleveland.com with “abortion podcast” in your subject line. As we get closer to the recording date, we will send a link to the platform and instructions on how to participate. We can accommodate up to 1,000 guests, although I doubt we will have anywhere near that many. Let’s see whether people gathering in good faith can have a civil discussion about a challenging issue. If it works, maybe this can become a regular feature of our podcast. Thanks for reading. | 