Trying to be all things to all people

Mr. Casey himself is emphasizing that while there is "tremendous disagreement" on abortion, there is also a broad consensus of which he is a part: to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, through greater access to contraception and family planning.

Other Democratic leaders have been making similar appeals to this "prevention consensus," including, in an op-ed article this week in The Times Union of Albany, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a supporter of abortion rights, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who describes himself as pro-life.

Critics dismiss these efforts as mere political posturing, an effort to obscure the profound divide on abortion’s morality and legality. But since the 2004 election, many Democratic strategists have argued that the party must find a way to signal tolerance to opposing views on this issue, and sensitivity to conflicting values.

What is, of course, deeply unclear as well as delicately un-asked, is exactly what defines "opposition to abortion" in this case. Trying to "reduce the number of unintended pregnancies" seems to be the polestar here, and Casey’s support of Alito and Roberts is trotted out as well. But what of possible legislation (rare in the Senate, but not unthinkable) that directly tackles abortion? The Partial-Birth Abortion Act?  The article nowhere tackles the question of whether Casey’s "opposition" to abortion would have any concrete manifestations in terms of votes on abortion-specific legislation.

Here’s an interview from last summer that Casey did with Valerie Schmalz of Ignatius Insight.

Casey: I believe that being pro-life means the right to a decent life for a mother and her child before and after birth.

I am and I have always been pro-life.

I support the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell research and would oppose the Castle bill to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research.  I believe that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for those who have committed heinous crimes.   

As a U.S. Senator, I will strongly support funding for stem cell research that doesn’t destroy an embryo.  There are many promising techniques under development that don’t require destroying the embryo and there’s good reason to hope that soon we’ll be able to remove the politics from this issue.

I also strongly support increased federal funding for research on stem cells derived from adult cells, bone marrow and placentas — areas where tremendous progress has already been made.