That’s the implicit question in this NYTimes piece on the current thrust of pro-life political activity

Some say the anti-abortion movement looks so successful because it has essentially ceded defeat on the broader goal of ending legal abortion. When the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in 1992, it upheld the Roe decision, albeit narrowly and allowing for some new restrictions. Bill Clinton was elected president later that year and appointed two additional supporters of abortion rights to the Supreme Court.

By the mid-1990’s, “everyone was recognizing on the pro-life side that the debate was shutting down,” said James Davison Hunter, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and the author of “Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America’s Culture War.” The prospect of overturning the broad constitutional right had slipped away, he said.

“The pro-life movement has come to terms with this political reality,” Mr. Hunter added, “and having done that, they have adopted a very different strategy, one that is incremental in nature.”

Its leaders say they have simply recognized that they are in a long-term struggle to change hearts and minds – and to reduce the number of abortions along the way. It was clearly a painful epiphany for some.

“I recognize this incremental strategy is not universally embraced in the pro-life movement,” Dr. James C. Dobson wrote last year in a collection of essays, “Back to the Drawing Board: The Future of the Pro-Life Movement.” “Our goal must always be to bring about a decisive end to this evil practice, with public policy that matches public sentiment.”

But Dr. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, a conservative group, added, “That time has not yet come.” He warned, “If we hold out for only the purest legislative approach, we will be left in the dust.”

Abortion rights leaders argue that these incremental laws are just another means to the same end; they do not see a defeated anti-abortion movement, but a smarter one.