President Bill Clinton argued that abortion in the United States should be “safe, legal and rare.” A master of devising and implementing centrist policies, his preferred domestic policy recommendations on abortion should be re-examined and reaffirmed at this time of massive extremist exposition regarding major social issues. In such policy areas as same-sex marriage, LGBTQ matters, drug policy, immigration, et al, the battle lines are being drawn in ways that are so mean and divisive that dangerous polarization is infusing American life.

I am Pro-Choice. I respect the views of many in the so-called Pro-Life camp. But, these descriptive titles have become so broad that they are almost worthless by definition. Who isn’t for life? Who does not support the right to choose a variety of social, political and economic opportunities that come before us? Thus, with such wide definitional parameters, extremists within the differing categories have sought to adopt benign terms for their malignant policies and tactics. How can anyone say they value Life by being anti-abortion, yet care little about nurturing a child in a safe and sane direction? I ask the same sort of rhetorical question to those who call themselves pro-Choice, yet also neglect the societal consequences of not supporting appropriate policies that would allow children to grow-up in a healthy and well-educated environment.

Particular damage on all sides stems from those who are single-issue voters and ideologues. On immigration, for example, the concern for those seeking refuge in the United States is noteworthy, but the cost of too many people overwhelming the system can have dangerous, unintended consequences. If scenes of panic and mistreatment at the border lead to unthinking support for entry, think about what happens when voters go to the polls and elect those who do not want anyone of color allowed into the United States: the border will become closed to these individuals for the foreseeable future and the do-gooders have themselves to blame. Remember, sometimes patience and moderation will lead to better outcomes. Immediate gratification to those who say they are supportive of “open borders,” does not then become productive for those who are really moderate on the issue. Otherwise, fewer admissions, more tragedy and less humane policies overall, can be the result.

My call is for moderation and, maybe more importantly, the use of considered judgment when we make public decisions, especially those choices of a political nature. Let’s go back to the abortion issue for some final thoughts.

In the last few weeks, Republican-controlled state legislatures have gone off the deep end. Oklahoma, for example, has passed legislation that gives more rights to a rapist than a thirteen-year old child who was attacked. Should the victim become pregnant, their new laws will not permit an abortion under any circumstances. If the rapist was a relative, the same policy applies. This is unjust, immoral, and downright crazy. Yet, at the opposite end of the political aisle, Democrats in Congress recently had an opportunity to bring sanity and fairness to the abortion debate by drafting national legislation (with significant Republican support), that would simply codify Roe vs. Wade prior to a likely extreme Supreme Court decision on the subject. Instead, Democratic Majority Leader Schumer pushed a bill that was as extreme as possible in permitting abortion in almost any circumstance, regardless of its sure defeat in the Senate. This kind of political extremism (stupidity?) is malpractice. A politically popular and salutary bill is purposefully avoided in order to make some counterproductive political points. What kind of sense does that make?

Pragmatism and compromise must be the operative code for our legislative process—at least at the federal level–or we will be in even more turmoil and decay. Spread the message! Help!