"it would nod toward both sets of core values..."

this is from commonweal by the awesome cathleen kaveny, on the court upholding the partial-birth abortion ban:

Life versus choice. Personhood versus bodily health and integrity. Women versus
unborn children. Are we in for another thirty years of abortion wars? I think
the Court was right in upholding the act’s constitutionality. At the same time,
I think the law itself will exacerbate conflict over core values rather than
ameliorate that conflict. But maybe there’s another way. Is it possible, for
example, to design a law that prohibits a range of late-term abortions, while at
the same time including a clear and defined health exception? Would such a law
be upheld by the Roberts Court? Perhaps. Such a law would not satisfy activists
on either side. But it would nod toward both sets of core values: it would
highlight the humanity of unborn life while recognizing that secular law should
not require a woman to sacrifice her fundamental physical integrity to carry her
baby to term. Maybe that’s a step toward a workable compromise. But I’m not
holding my breath.

i appreciate her distinction on values. i understand that opposition to abortion is seen as a priority value for many people [what's that word? when it's the most important thing?], but i think we'd do well to remember that pro-choice advocates are also using legitimate values. professor kaveny is good about this. watch the movie citizen ruth and you'll see...

but yes. planned parenthood is not the devil. i'm convinced that they're really trying to do something good. so where's the "workable compromise" of values?

as always, i have no answers...