Improving women's health without abortion? What?

Michelle Goldberg is spouting pro-choice blasphemy. She doesn't like the Senate's abortion language but argues pro-choice feminists should support it anyways.

It's become clear that if health-care reform passes, it's going to significantly erode, and probably end, insurance coverage for abortion. That makes it a serious step backward for reproductive rights.

Feminists should support it anyway.

The simple fact is that health-care reform, even with its awful provisions on abortion, will hugely improve the health of American women.

What? A pro-choice feminist who claims legislation which will supposedly harm access to abortion will improve the health of women?

All the hard-core pro-choicers at NARAL are scratching their heads and wondering, “But how can the health of women improve without abortion??”

Goldberg also notes,

Anti-abortion forces have had the advantage in this fight because they're willing to sacrifice the health of millions on the altar of their ideology. Their nihilism gives them leverage. It's tempting to wish that pro-choice forces could be equally resolute, and it's possible that stronger demands early on could have made a difference. But it's too late for that now. The choice is the Senate bill or nothing, and nothing would be a tragedy. There are very few things in this world for which it is worth compromising reproductive rights. But the greatest expansion of the social safety net in a generation is one of them.

Michelle is right that prolifers are more resolute but it’s not nihilism but rather simply understanding that attempting to help some human beings while allowing the government to subsidize the killing of other human beings shatters the underlying principle behind why people want better health care: Human life is valuable.