Why have boundaries?

Ann Friedman will probably never have to explain this assertion in a piece about the hierarchy of abortion and her belief any hierarchy is wrong:

All women should be able to choose abortion, for any reason, under any circumstances, within the boundaries set by Roe.

What? Isn't Ann creating her own hierarchy of abortion where abortions provided within the boundaries of Roe are somehow better than abortions which are outside those boundaries?

What's truly amazing about some abortion advocates is how they can (based on absolutist reasoning) look down on other pro-choicers who don't support as many abortions as they do, while at the same time not support some kinds of abortions themselves.

For example, here's Ann passing judgment on a pro-choice friend who thought 3 abortions in a year maybe too many.

A few weeks ago, a pro-choice friend of mine was appalled to learn that an acquaintance had gotten three abortions in one year. He questioned whether the woman was "using abortion as birth control." My answer? I don't know the circumstances, I don't pretend to know them, and frankly, I don't care. I support her choice. All three of them. Once you start passing judgment in such specific incidences, the slope gets pretty slippery.

Yes, it does. Too bad Ann doesn't realize she's on that slope.