Stefan Jeremiah/AP

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speaks to the media on the Low Library steps on Columbia University's campus in New York, April 24, 2024.

As student protests roil Columbia University and other campuses across the United States, Congress is stepping in to the fray.

The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed an antisemitism bill 320-91 that would pressure universities to rein in rhetoric against Israel and Jews, or risk losing government funding. 

The bill, though bipartisan, faced significant opposition from Democrats, some of whom see the bill as a Republican election-year ploy to score political points. Some Republicans also voted against it.

The vote follows months of House Republicans chastising top colleges for not having the backbone to rein in students protesting Israel’s military response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack. 

“The country needs clear moral authority,” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said on Tuesday, after taking the unusual step of personally visiting Columbia and speaking to the protesters last week, citing a vacuum of leadership. “We need the president to say, what’s happening on college campuses is wrong.”

While Mr. Johnson described the issue as black and white, the purported reason for this bill – to spell out more clearly what constitutes antisemitic rhetoric and behavior – tacitly acknowledges that it can be difficult to draw that line. Just how to protect the rights of American Jews without violating the First Amendment principle of free speech has become a matter of intense debate, and campuses have become the crucible for hashing that out. 

The Anti-Defamation League recorded more antisemitic incidents in 2023 than in any previous year since it began keeping track in 1979, with a sharp uptick in incidents following Oct. 7. 

Over the past week, nationwide campus protests have escalated, with protesters at Columbia taking over a building there for the first time since 1968. They have demanded that their university divest from corporations that “profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide, and occupation in Palestine.” New York City Mayor Eric Adams raised concerns about protesters’ rhetoric, from yelling “We are Hamas” – considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. – to saying “We don’t want no Zionists here.” Another frequent pro-Palestinian chant is “from the river to the sea” – a reference to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which implies wiping Israel off the map.

Mr. Johnson, a constitutional lawyer who long advocated for free speech before coming to Congress, supported vigorous debate and the right to protest at a Tuesday press conference on Capitol Hill. But, he added, the Columbia protests have gone too far, violating the rights of others. After an Orthodox rabbi urged Jewish students to leave campus, the university first canceled classes for a day and then offered hybrid classes for those who didn’t feel comfortable attending in person. 

In order to receive federal funding, universities must comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. In 2019, then-President Donald Trump issued an executive order extending those protections to individuals on college and university campuses facing antisemitism. The order instructed government agencies that enforce Title VI to consider the definition of antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and the present-day examples it offers. Wednesday’s bill would require that the Department of Education use that definition and supporting examples to enforce Title VI. 

Mike Blake/Reuters

Protesters gather at an encampment in support of Palestinians in Gaza, on the campus of the University of California, Irvine, April 30, 2024.

Examples, as worded by the alliance, include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Even Jews themselves disagree on what constitutes antisemitism versus anti-Zionism. 

Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, a Jewish Democrat who described himself as “a deeply committed Zionist” during debate on the House floor Wednesday, raised concerns that the bill could chill constitutionally protected speech. 

“I’ve devoted much of my life to combating antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people,” he said. While acknowledging that criticism of Israel could take the form of antisemitism, he said the bill was too broad. 

“Colleges could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians,” he added, describing the rushed bill as a “cynical attempt to exploit for political gain the deep divisions currently on display on college campuses across the country.”

House Republicans are now vowing to review whether schools that have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds are living up to their responsibility of upholding Title VI.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the National Institutes of Health, said Tuesday that Columbia received about $682 million in taxpayer-funded research grants from the NIH in the past fiscal year. Harvard received $409 million. The University of Southern California, which just canceled graduation ceremonies due to the protests, received $508 million. 

“We will be increasing our oversight of institutions that have received public funding and cracking down on those who are in violation of the Civil Rights Act,” said Chair Rodgers. 

This bill will give her and other GOP chairs a sharper tool for doing so if it also passes the Senate and is signed into law by President Joe Biden.

Chris Carlson/AP

Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks during a news conference March 6, 2024, in Charleston, South Carolina. Haley won 16.5% of the votes – a strong showing – in Pennsylvania’s recent Republican primary.

Who will be Donald Trump’s running mate? With just a few months to go before the Republican National Convention, the search is intensifying, with the presumptive GOP nominee reportedly discussing possible contenders with friends, insiders, and even guests at Mar-a-Lago, while his campaign is quietly compiling dossiers and vetting candidates.  

Kristi Noem, the Trump-aligned governor of South Dakota who was once seen as a strong prospect, effectively quashed her chances of joining the GOP ticket after revealing that she deliberately shot and killed her family’s puppy because she believed the dog was “untrainable.” The backlash has been bipartisan and intense.

Recent reporting has suggested that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio – a former rival once dubbed “Little Marco” by Mr. Trump – is under serious consideration, in part because of his Hispanic heritage. Speculation has also centered on Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, author of a bestselling memoir on his Appalachian upbringing, while other names in the mix include South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

After last week’s primary in Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground in November, one intriguing name has reemerged: Nikki Haley. The former governor of South Carolina, who dropped out of the presidential race in March, won a notable 16.5% of Republican votes in Pennsylvania’s closed primary.

One was Rich Kain of Sewickley, a suburb of Pittsburgh. A lifelong Republican, he voted for Ms. Haley last week and, though he says it pains him, plans to vote for President Joe Biden in November.

“Trump is a demagogue,” says Mr. Kain, who owns a public relations firm.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, arrives for Senate meetings at the Capitol in Washington April 23, 2024. Senator Vance is one of several Republican legislators whose names have been floated as possible running mates for Donald Trump.

But if Ms. Haley were on the ticket? “I’d have to strongly consider” voting for Mr. Trump, Mr. Kain says. He adds that given the advanced ages of both the former and current presidents, their running mates have taken on added importance this cycle.

With Pennsylvania one of just a handful of states that could decide the election, voters like Mr. Kain could offer Mr. Trump a strong reason to tap Ms. Haley as his running mate. 

Whether he would be willing to do so – and whether she’d accept – is another matter. Ms. Haley, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under President Trump before later running against him, stayed in the 2024 presidential race longer than any other major primary challenger, as the race grew increasingly heated. Mr. Trump nicknamed her “Birdbrain”; Ms. Haley overtly questioned his mental competence and still has not endorsed him.

Still, one GOP strategist who recently visited Mr. Trump’s Florida estate says Ms. Haley’s name “has been discussed.” While Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” base “despises her,” this strategist says, they wouldn’t abandon the former president over it.

And Mr. Trump himself is known for being transactional, with a history of patching things up with onetime adversaries. See the recent detente between him and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, another primary challenger whom he had mocked mercilessly. The two are now reportedly discussing joint fundraising appearances.

Ultimately, history shows it’s the top of the ticket that matters, with running mates typically making little to no difference in terms of votes. That may be especially true in the case of a polarizing, spotlight-grabbing figure like Mr. Trump, experts say.

“Trump overshadows everything – whether he puts a mini-me in there or moves to the middle or tries to balance by race or gender,” says presidential historian David Pietrusza.

Mark Schiefelbein/AP

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., one of several possible Republican vice presidential picks, speaks with members of the media Feb. 28, 2024, at the Capitol in Washington.

Veteran political analyst Charlie Cook also dismisses the idea that Mr. Trump’s running mate will matter much in November. And he warns against reading too much into a primary that took place after the nomination was already effectively decided.

But Mr. Cook acknowledges that Mr. Trump’s choice of Mike Pence as running mate in 2016 helped “smooth ruffled feathers” with the GOP’s evangelical base, particularly when Mr. Pence stuck with the reality TV star after the Access Hollywood scandal broke just before the election.

Six months before the 2024 vote, it’s impossible to predict what will matter most. For Mr. Trump, the safest bet might be to try to reach a broader pool of voters with his vice presidential choice – someone who could potentially appeal to suburban women, or men who want a more moderate tone, or both. In a year in which abortion has become a thorny political issue for Republicans, Ms. Haley has shown she can thread the needle with “common sense” rhetoric that doesn’t alienate the middle.

The bigger question for Ms. Haley might be whether she is willing to do what it takes to get the job. Vice President Pence was a loyal foot soldier to Mr. Trump until Jan. 6, 2021, when a pro-Trump mob invaded the U.S. Capitol to try to prevent him from presiding over the ceremony counting electoral votes for Mr. Biden. Mr. Pence went ahead with his official duties – a decision that constitutional experts applauded but that drew the ire of much of the GOP base.

Now Mr. Pence is a punchline. At the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner last Saturday, Mr. Biden joked that at least “my vice president actually endorses me.”

If Ms. Haley wants to run for president again in 2028, she may prefer to sit out the rest of 2024, calculating that attaching herself to the controversial Trump brand could be a negative.

“This vote in Pennsylvania wasn’t necessarily pro-Haley,” Mr. Cook says. “It was anti-Trump.” 

Nell Redmond/AP

Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles gestures at a press conference following a shootout that killed four law enforcement officers in Charlotte, North Carolina, April 29, 2024.

From New York to Texas to Alabama, law enforcement officials have warned for years that relaxing gun laws would lead to more violence toward police. The fatal shooting of a local police officer and three members of a fugitive task force in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Monday seems to bear those fears out.

The task force including U.S. marshals was trying to arrest a man for possession of a firearm by a felon. The man used an assault-style rifle to kill the four officers and wound four others before being killed himself.

Behind such incidents, in part, is a changing atmosphere around gun rights. Law enforcement officers themselves sometimes walk a thin blue line between lobbying for gun restrictions and having a wider conservative worldview of gun rights as sacrosanct.

For much of U.S. history, most states lacked laws around carrying concealed weapons. In the past 50 years, many have relaxed concealed handgun restrictions.

While most states still require a permit, a growing number now let people carry concealed weapons without one. Some have loosened laws even further, moving from granting gun permits for those with a legitimate need to carry a weapon, to passing laws guaranteeing the right to a concealed-carry permit for anyone not specifically prohibited from doing so.

Between 2015 and 2021, the number of concealed-carry permit holders in the United States grew from 14 million to 21.5 million. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional the use of subjective criteria in granting concealed-carry permits. 

Today, 29 states no longer demand a permit, or training, to carry concealed weapons. Much of that shift is driven by what gun rights activists call a “good guy with a gun” scenario that, in effect, enlists parts of the population to help keep the peace.

Nell Redmond/AP

A Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police officer walks close to where a shooting took place in Charlotte, North Carolina, April 29, 2024. Police and U.S. marshals were trying to make an arrest at a home in the neighborhood when they came under gunfire.

But encouraging armed self-defense also creates deep expectations in the U.S. that gun ownership is absolute, experts say. It also makes it hard to tell good guys from bad guys – especially when police can no longer confront citizens wearing guns in public.

“Police are at a definite disadvantage when it comes to the Second Amendment,” says John Violanti, a former New York State Police trooper and now a research professor at the University at Buffalo. “If we have a right to bear arms, we have a right to bear arms. But how do you deal with that?”

This year has already seen 98 officers shot in the line of duty between January and March, with 10 of those officers dying, according to the Fraternal Order of Police, which tracks those statistics. Last year, the organization recorded 378 officers shot – the highest number on record. Forty-six were killed by gunfire and 20 in ambush attacks.

Former Phoenix Police Chief Jeri Williams called for a federal ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. In 2022, she told Congress: “We are outgunned. We’re outmanned. We’re out-staffed.”

Ross D. Franklin/AP/File

Phoenix Police Chief Jeri Williams speaks at a press conference Feb. 11, 2022, in Phoenix. Before retiring from the post later in 2022, she called for a federal ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Yet Republicans have often ignored those calls as Second Amendment absolutism has spread, anchored by key Supreme Court decisions.

“The [political] difficulty here is that police are in the line of fire but they are a conservative element of the nation’s law and order tradition,” says Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University. “Conservatism today is a wholesale defense of the Second Amendment and the right of the individual to carry arms for personal protection.”

The Giffords Law Center’s Annual Gun Law Scorecard, which ranks and grades state gun laws, has found that gun violence in general and against police in particular is higher in states with looser gun laws. It follows, then, that states with stronger gun laws have fewer gun deaths, the center reports. Looser gun laws also infuse tensions into scenarios like that in Charlotte, where police are trying to separate unlawful carriers from their guns.

In 2023, however, North Carolina Republicans suddenly pulled a constitutional-carry bill from a floor vote. A year earlier, state lawmakers had overridden a veto by the governor, relaxing gun laws to allow pistols to be sold without permits. Part of the resistance to the 2023 bill came from the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association. In killing the bill, Senate Leader Phil Berger wondered if there was really a need to expand gun rights further in the Old North State.

As Charlotte residents watched a procession for one of the fallen officers Tuesday, there was a sense that more could be done to protect the protectors.

On X, Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners Chair George Dunlap called the shootings “senseless and preventable.”

Outside the Georgian Parliament on Tuesday night, a young woman with short brown hair, draped in the red-and-white Georgian flag, faced down dozens of balaclava-clad riot police officers.

“We want Europe; we don’t want Russia,” the biology student, who gave only her first name, Mira, says. “We are here ... to make the government listen to us.”

Minutes later, the police used water cannons and tear gas to push back and disperse the tens of thousands of protesters, causing scenes of violent chaos.

The protest rallied mostly young people against a proposed “foreign agents” law, modeled on Russian legislation, that the European Union says would be an obstacle to the former Soviet republic’s application to join.

The ruling Georgian Dream party withdrew a similar bill last year in the face of massive youth demonstrations. Its leader, Bidzina Ivanishvili, has pledged to push the law through now despite continued widespread opposition.

Opposition fears “foreign agent” crackdown

Since emerging from the collapse of the USSR as an independent state in the south Caucasus, Georgia has been at the heart of conflicting interests. Many of its 3.7 million inhabitants are torn between loyalty to historical links with Moscow and aspirations to join the European Union and NATO.

The controversial law, which the government’s parliamentary majority is expected to pass when it comes up for a vote this week, would oblige local organizations that receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register as “agents of foreign influence.” 

That would subject them to tight administrative and financial rules, similar to those that the Russian government has been using to weaken domestic opponents.

The opposition, and President Salome Zourabichvili, worry that the Kremlin-inspired law would be used to silence critical nongovernmental organizations, media organizations, and corruption watchdogs that receive foreign funding, and to tame Georgian civil society.

Shakh Aivazov/AP

Billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, leader of the ruling Georgian Dream party that he created, greets supporters during a rally in support of the government.

Georgian Dream leader Mr. Ivanishvili, a prominent oligarch who made his fortune in Russia, threatened on Monday to “punish” his political opponents after upcoming elections, prompting concern that he is planning to take Georgia down an authoritarian, repressive path.  

Thousands of people, most of them students, have been shutting down Tbilisi’s main avenue every evening since the first reading of the bill in Parliament in mid-April. The protests often end in violent clashes with the police.

The large majority of the demonstrators are too young to remember the Soviet Union. They raise their hands to show they are peaceful; sing the national anthem; chant Georgia’s name in Georgian, “Sakartvelo, Sakartvelo”; and post live videos of themselves.

“I am really tired, and I am really angry,” says psychology student Mariam Esameshvilli, who came to the demonstration on Tuesday with friends.

“I am very scared that we might have a war, or lose an opportunity to develop and grow thanks to our links with the West,” she says. “I am very scared of Russia. Look at Ukraine. If you don’t want to submit to them, they harm you. We are a small country; we are not that rich. So we need the EU and the U.S. to protect us, or we will also be invaded.”

Protesters seek European, NATO protection

Moscow has de facto controlled about 20% of Georgia’s territory since 2008, when Russian-backed separatists took over the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

“Moscow has occupied our territory for 15 years,” says Irakli Chorgolashvil, an information technology specialist from Tbilisi who came to protest with his friends and family. “To protect ourselves, we would need not only to join the EU, but to join NATO. And if this law passes, none of that will happen,” he worries.

Zurab Tsertsvadze/AP

Demonstrators argue with police during an opposition protest against a law that would force foreign-funded civic groups to follow special rules.

“This is a major moment for our country. We will not stop protesting until the law is dropped,” he adds.

Georgia was granted EU candidate status in December 2023, on the condition that Tbilisi would make legal and economic reforms in the coming years. But Brussels has warned that the “foreign agent” bill was “incompatible” with EU values.

President Zourabichvili, who occupies a largely ceremonial post, has declared her intention to veto the law. But executive power lies with the prime minister, and the president’s veto could easily be overturned by Parliament.

“We need help to resist Russia,” says Mira, wiping her eyes reddened from tear gas. “This bill is not just a bill; it’s about making a choice: Europe or Russia. And it’s clear, we want Europe.”

In the shallow, turquoise waters off Rasdhoo island, Aminath Zoona gathers a small group of adults – mostly women – around her. “Every Maldivian must learn to swim,” she tells them matter-of-factly.

As the first Maldivian woman in the country accredited as a trainer of swim-and-snorkel instructors, Ms. Zoona knows this group has a vital role to play in expanding swimming access. Getting more instructors trained will have a multiplier effect that puts more and more Maldivians – particularly women and girls – into the water. 

“I’ve always wanted to find a way to help our communities,” Ms. Zoona says, adding that “enabling a person to move around in the water comfortably helps create a long-lasting love for the ocean.”

The training session is part of the Ocean Women program pilot launched by the Manta Trust, a marine conservation nonprofit based in the United Kingdom. Together with the organization’s Flossy Barraud, Ms. Zoona is co-leading the program. The duo’s research had identified the lack of trained female swim instructors – among other social and cultural reasons – as one of the main factors keeping girls and women from learning to swim.

Limited access

Although this is a nation of about 1,200 small coral islands in the Indian Ocean, many Maldivians, particularly women and girls, don’t know how to swim. They not only miss out on the recreational benefits of the ocean but also are ineligible for many jobs in marine conservation and the crucial tourism sector. And because most Maldivians live a short distance from the ocean and must travel regularly among islands using government-operated ferries and private speedboat services, swimming is an essential skill.

“They must be prepared for any incident that could occur during their many journeys from one island to another,” Ms. Zoona explains.

Anne Pinto-Rodrigues

Aminath Zoona (wearing a cap) supervises the participants of the Ocean Women program pilot as they train adolescent girls from Rasdhoo island to swim.

Ms. Zoona herself was in the ocean from a very young age. She recalls her father, a professional diver, taking her to the beach in the nation’s capital, Malé, and teaching her to swim. Ms. Zoona eventually coached her younger siblings and cousins, and later her own three children, in swimming. 

She longed to be certified as a swim instructor. The opportunity arose in 2016, when a swim-instructor trainer from the globally recognized Scuba Schools International (SSI) came to Malé to coach. Ms. Zoona seized the chance to take a swim-instructor course and earn her certification. Next, she pursued certification to be a trainer of swim-and-snorkel instructors, becoming the first Maldivian woman in the country with this credential, according to the local SSI representative.

In 2019, she founded her own business, Salted Venture Swimmers, a swimming school in Malé. 

“I started as one person giving swimming lessons to one class early in the morning,” she says. Today, Ms. Zoona, along with her team of 10 instructors – both female and male – teaches children from the age of 2 months upward, as well as adults, to swim. “Our classes are full with kids wait-listed,” she says. 

“So much fun” 

Ms. Zoona has long been aware of the limited opportunities for Maldivians, especially girls and women, to learn swimming. But she wasn’t sure how she could help on a large scale. Then in 2022, when the Manta Trust announced its Ocean Women program to train local women to become swim-and-snorkel instructors, Ms. Zoona thought it would be the perfect way to help more islanders become proficient in swimming. She approached Ms. Barraud and offered her expertise. 

Ms. Barraud had been on the lookout for a local partner who shared the Manta Trust’s goals of marine conservation and equal access to the ocean. She welcomed Ms. Zoona’s interest. “What could be more perfect than a swim school run by a woman?” Ms. Barraud says. The two, each with a unique set of skills, partnered to co-lead the Ocean Women program in the Maldives.

Garnering sign-ups for the pilot proved more challenging than they anticipated. Local women were reluctant to join the program because they lacked confidence in their swimming skills. To address this, every Thursday in the three months before the pilot, Ms. Zoona traveled by ferry from her home in Malé to Rasdhoo and offered weekend swimming lessons to get the women comfortable in the water. 

“This helped them overcome their fear,” she says.

Anne Pinto-Rodrigues

Ms. Zoona (second from left) works with program participants to improve their swimming techniques.

Eventually, five women from Rasdhoo (and two men from other islands) signed up for the Ocean Women pilot, which was held from Nov. 17 to Nov. 25. In addition to training the group in the water, Ms. Zoona also took the participants through various modules of the SSI swim-and-snorkel-instructor course in the classroom. At the end of the program, all the participants appeared for the SSI examination, which they easily passed, and received certification. “The improvement of the participants, and how far they have come in this journey, is mind-blowing,” says Ms. Zoona. “I’m happy to have instilled a love for the ocean among them.”

The newly minted swim-and-snorkel instructors adore Ms. Zoona.

“I really appreciate her patience in teaching us,” says Aminath Shifza, one of the pilot participants. The mother of four recalls how Ms. Zoona took the SSI lessons, which are meant for pool learning, and applied them to the waters off Rasdhoo where the cohort received its training. “She made it so much fun,” adds Ms. Shifza. 

“Zoona is a much-needed role model for Maldivian women who want to become ocean champions,” says special education teacher Ifasha Abdul Raheem, who has been following the program. Ms. Raheem works at the Baa Atoll Education Centre, a government-run school on Eydhafushi island.

“Not only are the program participants exploring the ocean with more confidence now; they are also teaching others to swim and snorkel,” adds Ms. Raheem, referring to the first learn-to-swim session organized by the graduates on Rasdhoo, in December. Twenty children and five adults from the island signed up for the session, paying nominal fees.

Ms. Barraud, too, acknowledges Ms. Zoona’s vital role in the success of the Ocean Women pilot. “This couldn’t have worked without her,” she says.

The duo is already preparing for the next steps. “We plan to create more opportunities for the recently trained swim-and-snorkel instructors and need to find ways to scale up the Ocean Women program,” Ms. Zoona says.

Juggling the program, a family, a swimming school, and other responsibilities, Ms. Zoona has her hands full. But she is committed to Ocean Women.

“The only way we can safeguard our oceans for future generations is by creating new ocean ambassadors,” Ms. Zoona says. 

AP

Arizona House Republican Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci, second from left, talks with Democratic Minority Whip Nancy Gutierrez, second from right, and Democratic Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, right, as a staffer, left, listens in prior to a vote on the proposed repeal of Arizona's near-total ban on abortions, April 24.

Florida on Wednesday prohibited abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Arizona, meanwhile, took a step in the opposite direction when its senate voted this afternoon to repeal a near-total ban on the procedure.

These actions underscore how the policy landscape has shifted and splintered since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal constitutional right to abortion nearly two years ago. They coincide with dozens of bills moving through all but four state legislatures that could reshape laws affecting reproductive health care and insurance. Ballots in November may include initiatives to amend language on abortion in as many as 13 state constitutions.

What’s harder to see is how the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is challenging individuals and communities to work through their deeply held moral and religious differences to mold consensus with compassion and empathy. A project in Wisconsin offers a valuable insight – and example.

In December, 14 Wisconsinites representing diverse social and professional backgrounds gathered in a three-day “solution session” hosted by the Washington-based Convergence Center for Policy Resolution. The group of citizens has now published five policy proposals emerging from its conversations. Residents of the state have through May to post comments on the ideas, which range from paid family leave to better information about services provided by pregnancy-focused health care centers.

The more interesting outcomes, however, were less concrete. The goal of the project wasn’t for participants to try to move each other from one side of the abortion debate to the other, but rather to find common values through listening. Women who had had abortions spoke candidly about the difficulties informing their decision. Participants shared their religious perspectives. One medical doctor spoke of striving to set aside her own beliefs to provide care consistent with each patient’s deepest convictions and values.

The result was a deeper respect for difference. “We didn’t take the bait of compassion with a condition,” said participant Ali Muldrow, executive director of Women’s Medical Fund Wisconsin, in the project’s report. “As important as the areas where we agree, I think the areas where we disagree are deeply important. ... I think there’s a lot to learn from that.”

A group participant described as a pro-life advocate agreed. “While my beliefs on the sanctity and protection of all human life have not changed,” Jeff Davis said, “my experience with attendees who think much differently than I do has increased my compassion for what mothers go through and helped me realize that the issue has a lot of complexities.”

That kind of thinking may be softening the hardened battle lines of election-year politics. After the Arizona Supreme Court ruled April 9 to enforce an 1864 law banning almost all abortions, resistance came from an unlikely direction. Three Republican lawmakers in the House cobbled together a bipartisan vote to repeal the law, saying it was out of line with the values of Arizonans. Following the senate's vote, the governor has promised to sign the bill.

“As someone who is both Pro-Life and the product of strong women in my life, I refuse to buy into the false notion pushed by the extremes on both sides of this issue that we cannot respect and protect women and defend new life at the same time,” said Matt Gress, one of the three representatives.

Nearly two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” One effect of that decision may be more civic listening. On one of their most divisive issues, Americans are learning that disagreement is not incompatible with compassion.