Speaking double dutch: the political conversation on abortion is passing younger people by.

ONE OF THE MOST REMARKABLE THINGS ABOUT THE abortion debate is the stability of opinion about the issue--at least when it comes to the basic question about legality. Since the 1970s, we see only very small changes in both core support for and opposition to access to legal abortion. Nearly equal numbers call themselves prochoice and pro-life, with a bias towards the prochoice side.

And yet the debate has changed in ways that make it fundamentally challenging for both sides to advance their position. The language of rights, especially women's rights, has been replaced largely by privacy, a widely held value among liberals and conservatives alike. At the same time, antiabortion forces largely confine themselves to tapping into the moral ambiguity of when life begins as opposed to antifeminist arguments advanced in the early 1970S. Both sides seem to be in a holding pattern, circling our political institutions and the electorate, each achieving small victories, but never winning the war.

Both sides miss the way younger generations see the issue and will ultimately change the nature of the debate about abortion. For younger people, especially women, access to abortion is all assumption rather than a debate; ultimately this assumption undermines both sides because it makes it just as difficult to excite passions about the jeopardy to a woman's right to choose as to inspire repulsion for the procedure itself. What does it mean for abortion to be an assumption? Many people born after 1973 have no consciousness of abortion as a hard-fought-for right, but rather they see it is a medical procedure that is more or less difficult to get depending on where you live or your access to monetary resources. It is not something many particularly think about, except if you come from a certain kind of family (e.g., very religious or very liberal), or you or a close friend happen to need one.

So, while the antichoice lobby battles about "fetal rights," "fetal pain," and "partial birth abortion" and the prochoice movement attempts to rally the troops around threats such as George W. Bush's policies and a potential Supreme Court nominee, these debates largely pass young people by. It does not help that young people are notoriously apolitical--in 2000, 29 percent of people 18 to 24 years old voted, compared to an overall turnout of 51 percent--and do not consume traditional media such as broadcast news or newspapers. So, they tend not to be exposed to the political discussion of abortion in the course of their daily lives.

However, younger people, and younger women in particular, do care about these issues, but in their own way. Younger people express a fierce attachment to individualism. This generation wants to feel unfettered by parents, schools and bosses and they are ready to make their own way in the world. In a series of focus groups I conducted this year among young voters and non voters, they told me that the American Dream meant the "freedom to do whatever I want." At the same time, they have a deep sense of the importance of personal responsibility; freedom does not mean the freedom to act irresponsibly--especially when it comes to sex. Remember, this is a post-1960s revolution generation that is growing up at a time when sex can kill you (i.e., HIV/AIDS), or at least make you very sick, and sex education is a standard part of most educational experiences. This is not a generation where sex is an expression of personal liberation.

In this context, abortion is something that some young people feel they should have access to if they need it, but they do not want it to be used "irresponsibly." Every young person has their "urban legend" of the girl in school who uses "abortion as a form of birth control" and it makes them wonder if abortion encourages irresponsible behavior by its availability. This sentiment is a testament to the effectiveness of the right wing in reframing the advances we made as a nation coming out of the movements of the 1960s. But, to be frank, this is also an opportunity for the prochoice movement.

The current prochoice framework that invokes a woman's right to choose as fundamentally a right to make private decisions is not inconsistent with young people's belief in their right to self-determination. But for young people, choice needs to be framed as much about empowerment as it is about private decision-making (which remains an important value for the prochoice side). Moreover, as the Bush administration and its right-wing allies promote abstinence-only education and attempt to restrict access to such vital elements of birth control as emergency contraception, they attack the very tools that young people believe allow them to make "responsible" decisions about their reproductive health. Young people strongly support comprehensive sex education and the availability, of birth control, and in fact, dislike the extremism and hypocrisy of the right when they hear of these efforts.

In our current political environment with both sides of this debate currently fighting to a draw, we need to be ready to speak to the next generation about an issue that has a profound impact on their lives. Ultimately, access to legal abortion, sex education and birth control (for everyone, not just the privileged) are pillars of the freedom that young people--and young women in particular--so desire.

Reaching younger people is not easy; they do not consume the same media as other more politically engaged groups nor do they seek out political information. They learn from popular culture and their friends more than newspapers or broadcast news. Efforts to reach them need to be creative and speak to them where they live and work; information needs to come to them. This means on-the-ground "social marketing" or grassroots efforts, using the Internet and viral marketing, outreach efforts on campuses that include community colleges where so many people pursue their higher education, and using the organs of popular culture to advance a prochoice framework that speaks to younger generations. While it may not easy, we need to reach young people so we do not lose the achievements of the generations that came before us.

ANNA GREENBERG is vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.