WASHINGTON -- Last week, as opponents of abortion were in the nation's capital for the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a naive observer could be excused for wondering if "pro-life" and "pro-choice" Americans were heeding Rodney King's plea that we all just get along. But the quest for common ground, however beguiling it is to politicians, is probably a dead end.

		Michael McGough is an editor at large in the PG's National Bureau (mmcgough@ nationalpress.com).

First the good news -- at least for politicians (and prospective Supreme Court justices) who wish the abortion issue would just go away. In an address on Monday to New York State family-planning providers, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that defenders of Roe like herself and critics of the decision could find "common ground" in supporting efforts, including but not limited to exhortations in favor of "teenage celibacy," to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

The speech, which was widely interpreted as an attempt by Sen. Clinton to reposition herself for a presidential race in 2008, contained several grace notes for abortion opponents. "I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available," the senator said. She also dusted off Bill Clinton's mantra that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

On the same day Sen. Clinton spoke, the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced the "Second Look Project," a media campaign designed to induce Americans to rethink their positions on abortion by dispelling myths about what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade.

"Recent polls showing support for Roe v. Wade describe Roe as the decision which legalized abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, a flagrant distortion of the truth," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, the director of planning and information for the Secretariat. "Roe created an unlimited right to abortion and most people think an unlimited right to abortion is wrong."

Ruse is basically correct on both counts. Under Roe's trimester scheme, states could outlaw abortion in the last three months after a fetus became viable, but there is a loophole for situations in which giving birth would threaten the woman's health, including her mental health, and that loophole survived in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision reaffirming the "central holding" of Roe.

As for polls about attitudes toward abortion, it's notoriously hard to make sense of the results because of variations in the wording of the questions. Still, it's fair to say that most Americans don't embrace legal abortion in every circumstance. But neither does a majority support the idea of a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe. A 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that only 38 percent of respondents favored an amendment "to ban abortion in all circumstances, except when necessary to save the life of the mother."

So, in the spirit of Rodney King and Hillary Clinton, one could put a hopeful gloss on the Catholic bishops' new campaign. By emphasizing that Roe allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, the church is trying to score points with Americans who find late-term abortions more troublesome morally than early ones. Might that mean that the church is willing to give up on an across-the-board ban? If it did so, it would be following the example of George W. Bush. The president supports a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would outlaw all abortions except in cases of rape, incest and a threat to the mother's life. But Bush has acknowledged that "the country is not ready for a constitutional amendment" and so he aims his rhetorical fire at softer targets like "partial-birth" abortions.

It is hard to imagine the church abdicating to public opinion the way Bush did when he downplayed the Human Life Amendment. The closest it has come to such a concession is an acknowledgement that it would accept a constitutional amendment "that will protect unborn children's right to life to the maximum degree possible."

Tactically, the church might emphasize the offensiveness of late-term abortions because that is a way to get Americans to take a "second look" at abortion in general. But the church can't acknowledge that some abortions are worse than others without undercutting its teaching that life begins at conception. Nor can the church enthusiastically sign on to Sen. Clinton's suggestion in her speech last week that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" Americans unite around the agenda of preventing unwanted pregnancies, an agenda she said must include "increasing access to family planning services."

The church wants Americans to take a "second look" at abortion, but the church is not about to take a second look at its own absolutist position that all abortions are equally immoral. On the other side, Sen. Clinton might get into trouble with feminists if she tried to expand on why she thinks abortions should be "rare." Is it because she agrees with the belief she attributed in her speech to "many, many women" that abortion is a "sad, even tragic, choice"?

A stock criticism of Roe v. Wade is that if the Supreme Court hadn't arrogated to itself the job of defining a right to abortion, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" partisans would have been forced to compose their differences in the political process. The result would have been a compromise that neither side would consider ideal but both would agree to live with. It's a nice idea, but for true believers "common ground" can never be a substitute for victory.