Hyten is co-executive director of Essential Partners.
Abortion is one of the most polarized topics in American politics, yet we know that most Americans hold nuanced, complex, sometimes contradictory perspectives on abortion. A recent Pew study found that many supporters of abortion access are open to some restrictions, while many opponents say it should be available in some circumstances.
It is a peculiar irony that the complexity of those views also creates the circumstances for our national polarization. In their everyday lives, people have had vanishingly few opportunities to talk about abortion. It is often taboo or else people find it too difficult to articulate their views —and they choose silence.
This reticence has allowed the most extreme voices to dominate this discussion in the media, in our politics and in our communities. As a result, few if any political leaders express the views of the people they represent. Polarization is anathema to a functioning democracy.
Since the Supreme Court handed down a decision that effectively reversed Roe v. Wade, one polarized national conversation has turned into 50 distinct deliberations unique to the history, context and communities within each state.
As you navigate conversations about this topic in the coming months — whether in direct response to the Supreme Court draft decision or not — it is essential to honor both the complexity and the urgency around this conversation. It is also vital to the future of our nation that we empower the voices of everyday people, so they are able to clearly articulate and advocate for their views.
The organization that I lead, Essential Partners, was founded 30 years ago out of the need for better public discussions about divisive topics like abortion. In 1994, following the murder of two women’s clinic workers by an anti-abortion activist, our founders spent more than five years leading confidential dialogues between pro-life and pro-choice leaders in greater Boston.
"The most important thing I learned from the dialogue,” said Nicki Nichols Gamble, who was then the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of MA, “is that there is no more fundamental or profound responsibility for a leader than to understand the differences of opinions around you."
It is now more urgent than ever that our leaders understand the differences of opinions around them. But that can't happen as long as we are trapped in a public debate that is dominated by extreme voices. Now is the moment to break out of that old, dysfunctional, polarized pattern.
Drawing from our work on these conversations over the past three decades, I want to share three recommendations to help you have a healthier, more open, more nuanced conversation with someone who may have a different perspective.
Reflect on your own views
Make sure you understand yourself and what you want to share. Before a conversation about abortion, take a few moments to reflect on your own values. Think about a personal experience that shaped your view. Think about a person in your life who influenced your perspective. Consider taking notes if it helps you focus or remember what’s most important to you.
Make your purpose clear
Hard conversations often implode because people enter them with different purposes. One person is curious; the other person is trying to win. So before you dive in, make sure everyone has the same goal. It can be as simple as saying, “I’m not here to try to change your mind, shame you or scold you. I want to understand you and be understood. How does that sound?” You’ll be amazed at what can happen with a shared purpose.
Embrace the personal
Abortion is already personal. Embrace that fact in these hard conversations. When you talk about your views, speak only for yourself — not on behalf of all women, or all Christians or all liberals. Talk about me, my, and I, rather than you, we, and everyone. Talk about an experience that shaped your values rather than an argument in favor of your view (or against another view). Make yourself known in the way you wish to be known.
Private conversations have a profound influence on the public discussions of issues like abortion. When Americans fail to talk about important political questions, we cede the conversation to hard-line, divisive stances. We erase the diversity of thought that allows our democracy to thrive.
In the wake of this ruling, we have a choice. Whether we fall further into political polarization and dysfunction will depend on the conversations we are willing to have today.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.