Was I suggesting such demands? Jazzhead seems to think so.
He thinks that opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb is violating a woman's Constitutional right to abort the consequence of unprotected sex and forcing her to have a baby she does not want. In the context of the news on this thread, he's apparently all aflutter that our tax dollars are no longer going to pay for aborting infants in other countries. I guess we are violating the Constitutional rights of those women by forcing them to have a baby too, since you and I are no longer paying for it.
It seems either my writing or your reading comprehension is lacking. I have no objection to you or anyone else "opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb". Like you, I oppose abortion. Unlike you, I am willing to do something about it that works in the real world. Moral persuasion can be a powerful thing - hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers will soon arrive in Washington for their annual rally. More power to such outpourings of feeling on behalf of the unborn. And yes, many pro-lifers back their words with action, working in crisis pregnancy centers and providing support to women who've been abandoned by family and partner.
On the left, the movement to require insurance policies to provide contraception for free has, whatever else you may think about it, undoubtedly helped reduce the number of abortions. Abortions don't happen in good relationships, abortions don't happen when a child is planned.
Where the pro-life movement does the unborn a disservice is its insistence on fighting an unwinnable political war. I know you can't stand Roe v. Wade, think it was wrongly decided and represents a usurpation of states' rights, and has no foundation in the Constitution. But the reality is that it is the law of the land, and it is firmly grounded in the Constitution according the highest court in the land. Folks have asked me what the Constitutional foundation of Roe is, and the answer is really very simple: Marbury v. Madison.
That reality has existed for over 40 years now. It has existed for every woman of child-bearing age alive today. Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned. The time to do that was back in the seventies, when a Constitutional amendment could have been brought. The pro-life movement lacked the courage or will to do so, and ever since has been relying on the puncher's chance of electing a President who will appoint justices to "turn back the clock". It can't and shouldn't happen. The legal principle is stare decisis. An conservative jurist will respect that principle, and realize that the court lacks the power to re-define the rights of half the population in such a fundamental way. That power is reserved to the people, and that ship has sailed.
So get real, and stop pretending that agitation to ban abortion is doing the unborn any good. Call a truce in the political war for the sake of the unborn, and let's all work together to persuade, support and otherwise act to make abortion obsolete.