Pro-Life Pro-Choice?

Andrew Sullivan wrote in The New Republic about Hillary Clinton's recent speech about abortion.

There were two premises to Senator Clinton's argument and they are quite simple: a) the right to legal abortion should remain and b) abortion is always and everywhere a moral tragedy. It seems to me that if we are to reduce abortions to an absolute minimum (and who, exactly, opposes that objective?), then Clinton's formula is the best, practical approach. Her key sentences: "We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."

The conservative Catholic Sullivan praises Clinton for taking what he describes as a "broadly pro-life" position because she acknowledges that abortion is wrong. If more people who support a woman's right to choose agreed with Clinton, then a respectful conversation about the legality of abortion would be more likely (and Democrats might have a better chance of being heard by evangelical and Catholic voters). Not only that, but it might also lead to some progress towards reducing the number of abortions in this countries. A professor from Fuller Theological Seminary (where I am technically a student) writes here about what has happened under Bush in regards to actually reducing abortion rates. His conclusion?

Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.