Nice post, Steve. This approach to abortion is breaking new ground in diverse circles, so it is bound to ruffle some feathers, but that is a good thing. The ads were endorsed by a host of pro-life activists, so common ground is getting traction.

Not going to make much common ground on abortion by misstating the facts and downplaying the importance of abortion in voting.
In an attempt to stop the sloganeering it appears to condemn, the FPL ad adopts the mantra of the supposedly pro-life Obama apologists, who claim pro-life advocates have been unsuccessful in reducing abortions.
“the number of abortions [is] unchanged from 32 years ago,” it claims.
Not so.
The false claim that abortions have not been reduced under pro-life presidents and through pro-life legislation has been repeatedly refuted.
In January, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which bears the name of a former Planned Parenthood president, reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990.
The ad uses 1976 as the date of comparison to make it appear there has been no change. The fact of the matter is that abrotions have been on the steady downhill for the last 15 years.
The abortion rate, which Faith in Public Life notes in its ad, shows a drastic change from its highest levels in the years after Roe.
The AGI report shows the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women age 15-44) down to 19.4 per thousand — the lowest since 1974. That was the first full year following the Roe v. Wade decision. The rate had been as high as one in three pregnancies ending in abortion — a marked reduction that FPL appears to ignore.
We know from studies that pro-life legislation is already reducing abortions — by as mcuh as half in states that adopt most commonsense abortion limits. The FPL ad tries to mask that sucess by saying pro-life efforts are too political and are sloganeering in nature.
The only thing that is political and bumper sticker-ish is this “let’s all just talk about getting along and common ground but not really do anything to reduce abortions” ploy. We’re not buying it.

“We know from studies that pro-life legislation is already reducing abortions — by as mcuh as half in states that adopt most commonsense abortion limits.”
Which states are those, Steven? There is a study from the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good that shows a correlation between expanded social spending and lower abortion rates. Simply put, money spent on alleviating the economic reasons women have abortions lowers the rate and number of abortions dramatically.
blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/08/27/can-social-spending-reduce-abortion/
Some of their conclusions:
* States that spent more on welfare — or cut welfare more slowly — had many fewer abortions. The authors estimate that if every state increased spending on welfare by $1,350 per person living in poverty, there would be a 20% reduction of abortion.
* States that spend more generously on aid to women, infants and children (WIC) had lower abortion rates. They estimate that if states were to increase spending on WIC we could see up to a 37% lower abortion rate.
* During the welfare reform of the 1990s, some states instituted “family cap” policies that would not pay welfare benefits for children born to women already receiving welfare. States that did not have a family cap — and kept providing welfare even after new children were born — had about a 15% lower abortion rate than states with a family cap. The authors estimate that getting rid of the family caps would result in 150,000 fewer abortions.
* States that had higher male employment had a 29% lower abortion rate.
What did they find that did NOT work:
“They also found that many of the steps favored by pro-life groups and Republicans have not been effective at reducing the number of abortions. For instance, laws requiring parental consent for minors having abortions had no measurable affect on abortion rates, and laws against late-term abortion had a statistically insignificant impact.”
The question that remains for pro-life folks to answer is this: are you willing to see more money spent by the government (i.e., your tax money) in exchange for a drop in the number of abortions?
How much is an unborn child’s life worth to you, Steven?

RJohnson,
“are you willing to see more money spent by the government (i.e., your tax money) in exchange for a drop in the number of abortions?”
That is an excellent question for the “pro-lifers”. I presume it is a reaction to the support of children who have been born.
Another is, Would you be willing to discontinue teaching “abstinence ONLY”?
(I ask this in light of the fact that, while it is ‘true’ in the sense that IF you abstain, you won’t get pregnant, it has not been effective in reducing actual pregnancies – and the resultant abortions – the ‘goal’, remember? – since some people will simply not be abstinent.)
Another is, Would you be willing to drop all restrictions to access to ALL methods of birth control that would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

“are you willing to see more money spent by the government (i.e., your tax money) in exchange for a drop in the number of slaves?”
Another is, Would you be willing to discontinue teaching “no beatings ONLY”?
(I ask this in light of the fact that, while it is ‘true’ in the sense that IF you promise not to beat your slave, no one is hurt and slaves will work willingly, it has not been effective in reducing actual beatings – and the resultant fewer number of slaves – the ‘goal’, remember? – since some people will simply not quit beating their slaves.)
Another is, Would you be willing to drop all restrictions to access to ALL methods of selling and purchasing slaves that would reduce the number of unwanted slave auctions in the first place?