Both parties' most ardent supporters of abortion rights have recently struck another blow for their cause. On the Democratic side, President Barack Obama let it be known last week that he plans to repeal the "conscience" rule -- a Bush-era regulation providing job protection to doctors and nurses who refuse, on moral grounds, to participate in abortions or related medical services.

And Pittsburgh billionaire Elsie Hillman -- likely the GOP's biggest supporter of the pro-abortion cause -- publicly urged her party to reject its "extremist wing" on "reproductive rights" in order to reverse Pennsylvania's loss of liberal and moderate Republicans to the Democrats.

These leaders' actions -- and the contexts in which they were made -- call into question the use of the word "extreme." They also -- inadvertently, of course -- point the way for Republicans to carefully build public consensus on this perennially troubling issue.

Mr. Obama's announcement is consistent with a record that is not just pro-choice, but pro-abortion. He opposed "born alive" legislation in the Illinois Senate, the federal version of which was unanimously supported by Democrats in the U.S. Senate. In Pennsylvania last March, he described out-of-wedlock pregnancy as a "punishment" he wouldn't want his own daughters to endure. In August, he flippantly dismissed a question from his friend, the Rev. Rick Warren, concerning a baby's human rights.

One of his first official acts was to reinstate taxpayer funding of abortion, and he has promised to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act," which opponents note would overturn the widely supported ban on partial-birth abortions. These positions place Mr. Obama very far left of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

According to many years of polling by the venerable Pew Research Center (with the latest in September 2008), most of us continue to have conflicted opinions about abortion. Over the past two decades a consistent two-thirds' majority has approved keeping Roe v. Wade the law of the land, but 73 percent consider abortion "morally wrong in nearly all or some circumstances." Three-quarters of us support both the ban on partial-birth abortion and parental notification of a minor seeking abortion.

Given such statistics, how have ardent abortion-rights advocates like Mr. Obama and Mrs. Hillman been able to successfully portray pro-life forces as the "extremists"?

In her Feb. 19 Post-Gazette letter to the editor, Mrs. Hillman called for a return to the GOP's heritage of "limited government and individual freedom." She was responding to PG story earlier in the month about a recent study from the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown, Pa. The telephone survey of 400 Republicans who changed their party registration in 2007 and 2008 showed that the overwhelming reason for their switch was dissatisfaction with George W. Bush (68 percent) and opposition to the Iraq war (54 percent). While 67 percent of the switchers identified themselves as pro-choice, only 38 percent said their positions on abortion or gay marriage differed from the GOP's. And only 34 percent were concerned by the influence of religious conservatives.

These statistics do not support Mrs. Hillman's contention that the GOP's pro-life platform is substantially eroding its support.

In fact, a fair assessment of national studies, presidential exit polls and the Pennsylvania survey is that Mr. Obama won votes despite his ardently pro-abortion positions and, similarly, that Mr. Bush is disliked despite a moderate pro-life record that more closely matches national opinion.

In short, electoral results boil down to the personal likability and persuasive skills of either side's "front man."

Reversing the Bush administration's abysmal PR performance and finding an attractive advocate to speak for reasonable, broadly supported restrictions on abortion will be the easier of the GOP's tasks.

A far more difficult challenge will be convincing the party's religious conservatives and grassroots activists that there's a gap between what is philosophically consistent and what is politically feasible. In this battle, all or nothing gets you nothing.

Reason tells me that life begins when a fertilized egg is successfully implanted in the womb. I teach my children this, attend a church of this persuasion and give to help pregnant women persevere.

But as a citizen I would be relieved to see a public policy that prohibits abortion after the "quickening" (at about 18 to 20 weeks) -- the ages-old standard for moral culpability when a pregnancy was ended either intentionally or by injury. If we consider how humane a people we wish to be, a better policy would be prohibiting abortion at the somewhat earlier threshold of fetal pain, once it's scientifically established.

If they wish the GOP to govern again -- or, more nobly, if they simply want to save as many innocent lives as possible -- anti-abortion activists have to accept such a compromise. Respecting different dictates of conscience among our fellow citizens -- including our health-care providers -- is as important for ardent pro-lifers as it is for this pro-abortion president.