Ross Douthat makes the argument that the pro-life movement has already adopted many tactical compromises, but remains doctrinaire only on the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Both of which, which he correctly points out, prevent any significant restriction on abortion and any further compromise that might be reached in the political realm with pro-choice proponents. But I think he overstates the case that it all boils down to Supreme Court doctrine.

One need only recall the Republican primary in which Rudy Giuliani pledged to appoint orignialist judges and even keep in place pro-life measures such as the Hyde Amendment (limiting federal funding of abortion) and the Mexico City accord (preventing funding of international groups which provide abortions). We were told over and over again (by pundits, activists and other candidates) that this certainly wasn’t enough to win over the hearts and mind of pro-lifers. He was going to create a civil war in the party, his election would mean millions of social conservatives would stay home and it was unfair to expect social conservatives to give up their heart-felt positon. In short, Douthat’s thesis that legal conservatism would be sufficent for pro-lifers was roundly rejected. It was simply unacceptable to have anyone who carried the label “pro-choice” even if he had migrated to an effective pro-life position in practice.

I think Douthat underestimates the degree to which pro-life politics has become identity politics. Sarah Palin was lauded not because of her moving and repeated speeches condemning abortion ( there weren’t any), but because she identified herself strongly as “pro-life” and “lived the pro-life message” in her decision to take on the challenges of a Down’s Syndrome child, we were told. Had she been elected and by some tragedy ascended to the presidency the actual decisions she might have made, on judges for example, likely wouldn’t have been that different from those made by a President Giuliani. But you won’t convince pro-life activists of this.

So while I might agree with Max that the GOP might do well to consider some “adjustment” in this area, I think we’ve seen, despite Douthat’s gloss, that this isn’t an easy propostion. When, as Giuliani showed, it is not enough to merely reaffirm the proper role of the courts or to pledge a legislative status quo, it is clear that there’s not much room for compromise.