A little immigration reform here, a little religion in the public square there, a little gentle talk about common ground on abortion -- and what have you got? The birth of a new, moderate Hillary Clinton, announces the press.
"Democratic Party appears to be getting softer on reproductive rights," headlined a National Public Radio story. "Gasps as Hillary woos the anti-abortion vote," reported the London Daily Telegraph. "Hillary Clinton Seen as Staking Out Centrist Positions," announced the Bulletin's Frontrunner.
It's a testament to the rigidity and extremism of the pro-choice abortion movement that even such platitudinous phrases as Clinton tossed into her address to the New York State Family Planning Providers conference were considered signs of movement to the center.
Clinton, in what some hopeful Democrats are describing as her "Sister Souljah" moment (a reference to Bill Clinton's rebuke to a hip-hop star in 1992), told a pro-choice audience that "opposing sides" on the abortion question should "seek common ground" in the effort to prevent unwanted pregnancies. (Oh gosh, she's gone soft!) Clinton further allowed that, "We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."
If anodyne words like those are evidence of a move to the right, consider what that says about the pro-choice position. The pro-choice movement does not want to seek common ground in preventing unplanned pregnancies? It does not recognize that abortion is sad or tragic?
In point of fact, the pro-choice position has hardened over the years to the point where any deviation from orthodoxy is considered heresy. Abortion advocates have fervently resisted every single legislative limit on abortion. They've stoutly opposed waiting periods, parental notification laws and bans on late-term abortions and partial birth abortions. They've even opposed a law that would permit a baby who by accident survives a late-term abortion