So, what next for Americans

[Don Corleone]

Don, may I ask what I hope is a constructive question? - in no way do I mean to belittle anyone's beliefs here.

It strikes me that the biggest impediment to putting a decent and humane bill on abortion is the polarisation of the issue in the States. The left defends Roe versus Wade (a truly awful ruling, it seems to me) because the opposition will brook nothing less than the complete outlawing of abortion (understandable if one accepts their premise that abortion is murder).

Do you think it is possible that a Democratic president with a very strong mandate plus a compliant Congress might be able to address this issue thoughtfully? Perhaps to propose a bill (maybe even a Constitutional Amendment) that would set a limit of (ideally) 12 weeks for abortion (with slightly longer limits for serious medical issues) or even the European standard of 20 weeks? Would there be a possibility of bi-partisan support for this (since really important bills usually need this)? Or would opening the can of worms result in ignominious defeat?

Perhaps the Democratic party is too far gone on the pro-choice defensive, but I seem to recall President Clinton putting it very well: "Abortion should be legal, but very, very rare."

Am I too optimistic?

Bill Clinton was quoting the original party line for abortion that Planned Parenthood has used since 1973. One of the rare missteps Obama had during the campaign was defending his oppostion to the "Born Alive" act, something he opposed in the Illinois state senate. What it outlawed, I'll describe in hidden text in the interest of civility.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There is a very late term abortion procedure by which the doctor induces premature delivery. The idea is that the fetus (typically at 32/33 weeks by this point) will not survive the shock of being forced into delivery early. Many do. Those that do are left to die of exposure, as it was decided "before they were born", that they were not to be born, so even though they survived the delivery process, since the intention was for them not to, the medical staff should let them die. It is an uncommon procedure that accounts for 0.5% of abortions, and the AMA is against it (the AMA does support elective 3rd trimester abortions, however).

When a "Born Alive" act, basically outlawing the procedure, was brought to a vote in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against it. This is not merely a defensive posture to an assumption of slippery slope from the pro-choice side, it is a widening of the scope of abortion. In light of that, and in light of the stated intention by NARAL to get the federal "Born Alive" act repealed, I think it's a safe guess that it will be.

I understand what you're saying... that the extremism of the pro-choice side is a reaction to the extremism of the pro-life side. It's not that. Look at the numbers of abortions per year over the past 35 years of Roe. I agree that it should be "Safe, Legal and Rare", but we as a society are doing what we can to see to it that it's anything but rare.

I am pro-choice in the legal sense, at least in the first trimester, but would do whatever I could to discourage the practice. Unfortunately, that's a losing battle, and most pro-choice people would say I'm really anti-choice, because by my efforts, I'm implying there's something wrong with having the procedure. I would argue that there is, it should be an option of last resort, and I am called a misogynist for that view.