Democrats are undertaking a massive effort to win back Catholics, whose support they've lost in recent elections.  There's been some major speechifying, by Bob Casey, Jr. (which I discussed here), and by John Kerry (which I noted here).  And there's a major legislative vehicle, summarized here. 

Of course, there's more than one fly in the ointment.  In the first place, there's a competing bill, offered by Democrats for Life, that will be introduced tomorrow.  The big difference appears to be that this alternative focuses on supporting pregnant women, rather than on "preventing unwanted pregnancies."  I'd bet there's no money for Planned Parenthood in this bill, but plenty in the other.  It's more obviously pro-life, as opposed to pro-choice.

This leads to the second problem, which emerges clearly in the speeches noted above, as well as in this one, by pro-choice Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro, whose efforts I've discussed here and here.  Everyone regrets or deplores abortion, but then talks about choice and conscience.  They don't say why abortion might be wrong (because then we probably shouldn't choose it and should seek to prevent it, or at least make it harder to come by).  In other words, if it's something we can choose, then why is it wrong?  And if it's wrong, why should we be permitted to choose it?  I say this recognizing, of course, that not everything that's immoral should necessarily be illegal and that there might be any number of ways to discourage immoral acts other than prohibiting them outright.  But these Democratic speakers studiously avoid actually saying that abortion is wrong for this, that, or the other reason, which leaves their reasons for wanting to reduce its frequency officially mysterious.  Of course, there's no mystery: if they actually explicitly said that abortion is wrong, they'd alienate their pro-choice allies and pave the way for some modest limitations, which they clearly don't want to do.  So they try to appeal to pro-life people without actually explicitly conceding the ground on which the pro-lifers stand.

One last thought: this initiative amounts to an effort officially to try to reduce the number of abortions by expanding the welfare state, which John Kerry, if memory serves, comes pretty close to admitting in his speech.  Another arrow has been added to the Democratic quiver: in addition to "it's for the children," we now have "it's for the unborn children." 

I might support some of these efforts on their merits, but only as part of a package that affirms the wrongness of abortion and provides for real, even if modest, limitations.  I have a hard time seeing many of those involved in this effort joining me on my middle ground.