There needs to be a distinction between the positions we take on issues on the merits...and how those issues play out in a primary and, especially, in a general election. I'll use abortion as an example, because we're here.

When we're by ourselves, as it were, it makes sense to clarify our positions to a high degree. Hash out everything and come to the "right answer."

So, abortion should be legal, safe, and carry no social stigma whatsoever. We don't stigmatize people who go in for other necessary, or elective, procedures. No one says face lifts should be legal, safe, and rare, as if there were something wrong with getting a face lift. Same thing for abortion.

But as soon as we propose to take our support of abortion (or any issue) into an election, we have to look at it, at least potentially, in a different light. Why? Because we know, going in, we will NEED the votes of people who don't see our issue in the same way, not to mention others who reject anything close to our position entirely.

So we could say that "legal, safe, and rare" is a compromise with those people who have certain qualms about abortion. They want it to be legal and safe, but they'd rather there be fewer of them than more of them. And we specify how we plan to reduce the number of abortions.

This is a compromise with people who do NOT share our views on abortion. Not a compromise with folks who are strictly anti-abortion, but with people who don't like abortions per se, but don't want to make it illegal.

So we have to treat our issues in two different ways and for two different purposes. The first way is to come to the right conclusion; the second way is to use the issue in an election and attempt to move things in the world.

Now, some people will say, with some reason, that we can't give up any ground or they're roll all over us. But I don't think the legislative record will show that. Brown paved the way for the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. DADT paved the way for gays serving openly in the military and for gay marriage. SS that excluded black people and menial laborers led to everyone being covered. This is the arc of justice, and it's a long haul.

And we have to be clear where the front line is. AA's article on medical abortions via a pill was very illuminating. Embedded in it is real danger and real opportunity. Real danger because once you take the doctor out of it, women become the perps and they can be jailed, and not for piddling times. In fact, they are already being jailed, I think in small numbers. And all those laws giving foetuses personhood become very scary.

However, there is also real opportunity. The more mainstream anti-abortion forces have made a living out of depicting the woman as "victim." It's the doctors who are committing murder. Very few people want women going to jail for having an abortion. So the doctors become the scapegoats, and since there are fewer and fewer willing to risk their lives to do abortion, it's really easy to scapegoat them as the Devil's assistants.

But what happens when the scapegoat goes bye-bye? That leaves only one murderer in the picture, the woman. There are no longer abortion clinics to protest or doctors to kill. Abortions are happening in the privacy of peoples' homes. Now, how do people feel about the police getting a warrant to search someone's home? How do they feel about the authorities opening anyone's mail (and discovering all them sex toys sent under brown paper cover)? Or digging up someone's yard looking for foetal remains?

And how does the public feel about ponying up for the massive resources that would be required to launch and maintain this kind of law enforcement effort? Suddenly, every home and apartment is a potential abortion clinic. Suddenly, every box in brown paper wrapping is an abortion "doctor."

Think of the elaborate ruse WhatsHisName had to pull off to make those Planned Parenthood videos. Compare that to the ease with which a woman's husband or partner could take video of the police entering (perhaps forcibly) their home and searching it? Or questioning the woman about the most intimate matters? Or digging up their beautiful, award-winning garden in search of telltale goop.

Then multiply the number of those videos going viral around the world in seconds with faces and names there for all to see. Advantage: us.

Abortion clinics don't go away, but the need for them goes waaaay down. And if you're not going to jail a woman for murdering her own foetus, it will be harder to jail a doctor who is only brought in when there's an emergency. Suddenly, anti-abortion protesters look foolish for hanging out at abortion clinics when everyone knows that most abortions take place at home.

The drugs could be banned, but how is the war on drugs working out for ya? You're already busting a nut trying to stamp out cocaine and heroin use and importation. Now, suddenly, everyone between the ages of 13 and 48 becomes a perp in potentia scouring the landscape for any possible route by which she can buy her "fix"? And it isn't just the women, but also their male partners, friends, and family members, who will be in on the transactions. In fact, maybe we get smart and half the drugs are mailed to men. Now you have almost the entire population of people between 13 and 99 to surveil. How easy is that going to be? It will be impossible.

At that point, if it's not too late, the country can engage in a discussion about abortion without the threat of force (jail time or death) or shame hanging over peoples' heads. Most likely, the issue just goes away for all intents and purposes. It becomes solely a private decision which I predict won't make it any easier for the people involved.