"To start with, he needs to more frequently acknowledge that what he’s calling for is not new and not just his idea."

Lord Saletan triumphantly (re)discovers that pro-lifers may not be entirely consistent when it comes to protecting fetal life, and that there may be a “new” strategy that points out this contradiction. No kidding! Perhaps if he paid more attention to the reproductive rights movement rather than discussing strawmen he attributes to them, he would have figured this out a decade or three ago. And what’s amazing is that he’s pretty much already written this column earlier this year. As I said after he wrote the last one:

…the most remarkable thing about Saletan is that he discusses supporting increased access to contraception and sex ed (which, of course, reduce unwanted pregnancies and hence abortions) as if he just split the atom, when of course pro-choice advocates already figured this out decades ago. As Franke-Ruta says, it’s pro-lifers who generally oppose these initiatives. But, of course, take away his excruciatingly banal policy proposals and you’re left with nothing but “I think abortion is gross but I suppose it should remain legal but highly regulated,” which seems unlikely to be an argument that will get your op-ed published. Franke-Ruta makes another important point: people like Saletan just sort of assume that abortion will just kind of remain legal by itself, as if public opinion surveys will protect the right, and as if motivated minorities don’t often get policy victories over more diffuse majorities. (I’m less sure about describing abortion as “awful,” but I agree that there’s a difference between taking women’s experiences into account and instructing them about being immoral; anyway, that’s a whole other post.)

…Belle Waring, for some reason, is not grateful that Saletan has interrputed his concern trolling to share this monumental insight.