Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Guide to a dialogue about abortion

Hyten is co-executive director of Essential Partners.

Abortion is one of the most polarized topics in American politics — one side favors access, the other side favors restriction. Simple enough.


However, Americans themselves hold nuanced, complex, sometimes contradictory perspectives on abortion. It is a peculiar irony that the complexity of those views also creates the circumstances for polarization. People have had vanishingly few opportunities to talk about abortion in their lives. It is so often taboo. Just as often, people find it too difficult to articulate their views and they choose silence instead.

This reticence has allowed the most extreme voices to dominate in the media, in our politics and in our communities.

On abortion, few, if any, political leaders express the views of the people they represent. But we can change that together.

The Supreme Court has handed down a decision that effectively reversed Roe vs. Wade. This turns one polarized national conversation into fifty distinct deliberations unique to the history, context, and communities within each state.

As our nation navigates 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 articulate and advocate their genuine, nuanced views.

To support new conversations about abortion, Essential Partners has published a guide designed to invite citizens to make space for conversations about abortion that bring in deep beliefs and complexity. To transform the conversation in their individual context, it is crucial that we allow space for whatever comes up for people, even (or especially) if it is messy.

For a copy of the guide, go to:

https://whatisessential.org/resources/guide-dialog...

Laura Chasin, the founder of Essential Partners who co-led confidential leadership dialogues about abortion for the better part of a decade, often spoke of “liberation through structure.” It is so easy for conversations on this topic to go off the rails and devolve into unproductive venting or harmful, polarizing rhetoric—especially in times like these.

Structures and norms like the ones suggested in our new guide may feel awkward, but they also create the possibility of a new kind of conversation. You have to step out of your normal way of speaking and relating to one another in order to free yourself of dysfunctional, polarizing patterns.

This guide is designed to help you give any group an opportunity to reflect on the impact of the draft Supreme Court decision in a way that builds empathy, understanding, trust, and compassion — and then, if you choose, to help people wrestle with how they want to come together as a community to support people in a variety of ways.

Within this resource you will find general tips as well as guidelines and prompts for more formal dialogues that you can hold in your classroom, bible study, book club, institution or community space.

If this guide doesn't meet the needs of your context, if you have questions about the use of this guide or if you want some additional support and collaboration, please reach out for a free consultation with an EP expert.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less