Positioning

From the America blog:

... But, it has gone largely unremarked in analysis of the upcoming Pennsylvania primary that Clinton does have one group of political activists to whom she is especially indebted. Pro-choice groups like NARAL, NOW and Emily's List have been the base of her fundraising and organizational support. They have sent emails and placed phone calls to voters in key primary states questioning Obama's commitment to Roe v. Wade. And, the generational cleavage among women – older women tend to support Clinton by significantly large margins than younger women – is also related to the abortion issue. For older women, Roe was part of their emergence on the national political stage, a process that they see coming to fruition in Clinton's bid for the White House.

Cleavage among women?

In heavily Catholic Pennsylvania, it is curious that so little attention has been paid to Clinton's dependence on these groups. Her campaign is built largely upon her experience during her husband's tenure in office, and few pro-life voters will forget that it was Bill Clinton who vetoed the Partial Birth abortion bill. Did she advise him to do so?

There has been some indication that she did indeed do so. Regardless though she voted against the partial-birth abortion ban and does have a 100% NARAL voting record.

Clinton should find an audience in Pennsylvania where she can distance herself from some of the more extreme pro-abortion arguments. She could say that the Democrats need to move beyond simply defending Roe and find alternatives to abortion or new ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. She could repeat her husband's mantra that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" and point to ways that might make it more rare.

The effort would cost her nothing. The older women who are Clinton's base know where she stands on the issue, and they are never going to abandon her. But, she could usefully position herself as a more moderate candidate for the general election, and strengthen what remains as her most credible claim to the nomination: the ability to attract moderate swing voters, many of whom are Catholic and many of whom have continued to deliver large majorities for pro-life Democrats in Pennsylvania.

I do find this odd advice from a Jesuit magazine (well at least I wish this was odd advice from  a Jesuit magazine).  That basically Hillary should just "position" herself with no mention of actually wanting to reduce abortion. Just repeat her husband's mantra about abortion. It doesn't matter if she should actually ever do such as thing and of course if she was actually President she would veto any pro-life legislation  and her court picks would certainly not be the types to restrict abortion.

I also wonder what the writer considers "extreme pro-abortion arguments?" From a Catholic perspective what would be a moderate pro-abortion argument.