01-22-2019 08:10:28 AM -0800
01-22-2019 06:44:33 AM -0800
01-21-2019 09:04:27 PM -0800
01-21-2019 05:12:14 PM -0800
01-21-2019 10:26:58 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

The Radical Pro-Abortion Left Needs to Compromise

"A person's a person, no matter how small." Dr. Seuss quote in front of the Supreme Court.

There was a time when the left wasn’t so extreme on abortion. At least, that’s what I’m told. In fact, it was President Bill Clinton who claimed he felt, despite his alleged personal dislike of abortion, he wanted abortions to be “safe, legal and rare.” It was a moderate position that could effectively unite the various factions in the debate in a country that generally supports the legality of abortion, but is divided on the morality of abortion.

The legality of abortion was established by Roe v. Wade“— "safe” and “rare” are the two areas the pro-abortion movement should be more than willing to unite with the pro-life movement on to achieve something resembling compromise. But, even there, there’s an impasse. The pro-life movement argues that no abortion can be safe because every abortion ends in the death of a child. The pro-abortion movement doesn’t see it that way. By “safe” they mean “safe for the mother.” However, any attempt to improve the “safety” for the mother is met with extreme resistance.

Case in point: The U.S. Supreme Court has just refused to take up Planned Parenthood’s challenge to an Arkansas law requiring doctors who provide abortion pills to be under contract with a physician who has admitting privileges at a hospital, and can treat any potential complications from the abortion. In a country where abortion is legal, this is a perfectly reasonable compromise that neither conflicts with Roe v. Wade or with the idea that abortion is “women’s healthcare” and even “safe” by what we thought were pro-abortion standards.

So why do they oppose such efforts? Because efforts to make abortion “safe” are seen as backhanded ways to make abortions rarer. In fact, the pro-abortion movement has stood in the way of all attempts to make abortion rare. Why? Because abortion is big business. That's why the pro-abortion left is rabidly opposed to 3-D ultrasounds, abortion counseling laws, parental consent laws, free speech around abortion clinics, and partial-birth abortion bans. Any attempt to restrict their cash flow must be opposed. Virtually any measure short of establishing drive-through abortion clinics attached to every McDonald's isn’t enough for them. And, even though they say the government should not be involved in abortion, they won’t be happy until abortion is fully subsidized.

While they frame abortion as a healthcare choice, any effort to make women choose life is treated as an attack on women’s rights. This is why no one can honestly call them “pro-choice.” Worse yet, pro-life women are treated as traitors to their sex. The right to abort your child is seen by the pro-abortion left as the most important freedom for women. It is a sacred cow of the left, and as the abortion lobby increases power and influence, leaders on the left are evolving (or more accurately “devolving”) to increasingly extreme positions.