THE PRO-life movement must measure its victories in nuances. Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned any time soon. But there is movement in the culture.
The flap over the appointment of Dr. Henry Foster Jr. is an example of the progress made. When it was revealed that Dr. Foster had performed abortions, some commentators shrugged, saying, "What else can you expect? This is an administration wedded to the idea that abortion is a solemn right. Why should we be surprised that an appointee shares that view?"
But that isn't the point. The cheering news is that having %J performed abortions is now considered to be a stain on a physician's record. Even the White House was at pains to point out that Dr. Foster had delivered more than 10,000 babies -- and stressed (beyond the point of credibility in my judgment) that the few abortions Dr. Foster did perform were all in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother.
The White House also released an Orwellian statement saying that Dr. Foster had "performed a full range of reproductive services." What, exactly, is "reproductive" about abortion?
The more the pro-choice forces are required to retreat into euphemism, evasion and obfuscation, the stronger the pro-life movement becomes. That the White House was embarrassed and defensive is a sign of movement.
Pro-choicers would love to keep the focus of debate on the stray acts of violence at abortion clinics. That's understandable. Only when they are being shot at can pro-abortion forces hold the moral high ground.
While it is undeniably important for pro-lifers to distance themselves from the violent fringe -- indeed, to condemn it unambiguously -- it is just as crucial to keep the focus of the abortion debate on the act itself.
Pro-choice groups call themselves "pro-choice" because they cannot bring themselves to admit that they are pro-abortion. They have had terrific success, thanks to a sympathetic press, in keeping the focus of discussion on the exceedingly rare instances of rape and incest rather than on the roughly 1.5 million abortions for convenience each year that this society tolerates.
In the February issue of First Things, Amherst College Professor Hadley Arkes is quoted as making this suggestion: Wherever possible, legislatures should introduce laws outlawing third-trimester abortions. (Roe vs. Wade permits states to regulate abortions in the third trimester.) Mr. Arkes' point is not just to succeed -- though, if enacted, such a law would bring to an end the 17,000 third-trimester abortions that are performed each year in the United States. But Mr. Arkes says the debate over such a law would have a wonderfully clarifying effect.
Pro-choice groups would almost certainly oppose such legislation. But on what grounds? Invoking the right of privacy would ring pretty hollow when the subject is a 7-, 8- or 9-month-old fetus. If the continuation of the pregnancy presents a threat to the mother's life, there is every possibility that in the third trimester, the child can be born alive.
Would pro-choicers argue that no one can force a woman to carry a child she does not want? That argument, too, loses much of its power when the pregnancy is already nearly complete. If the mother has managed this long, why not ask her to hang in there for a couple more months? Is that such a burden, compared with the child's right to life?
Nor can pro-choice types maintain that a woman cannot be unwillingly saddled with a child to raise. If the mother does not want the baby after birth, the child can be placed for adoption immediately.
The beauty of Mr. Arkes' idea is that it would force the debate in the direction it needs to go -- toward the child at risk and away from bizarre and wrenching situations like rape and incest. A late-term fetus is very recognizably a baby. It is clear even to the most ardent abortionist that this is more than "a clump of protoplasm."
Dr. Foster will probably be confirmed. But there is no question that he would have emerged on the national scene with greater stature if probes of his past had revealed that he had declined to perform abortions. That is progress indeed.
Mona Charen is syndicated columnist.