My big thing with the "libertarian" argument for abortion rights is that it's about as libertarian as Communism.
Either the fetus is a humna or its not.
If it is, the government has as much right to allow you to kill the child in the name of "libertarianism" as it does to give you the right to kill your next door neighbor. It should protect the fetus because the first and most legitimate government function is the protection of defenseless citizens.
If the fetus is not human and merely unwanted tissue, then the state should have no role in deciding whether you abort any more than they should decide whether you have a mole removed, but that is only the case if we know beyond reasonable doubt that the fetus is not human, otherwise the government must err on the side of protection.
Condi's view (if Drudge got it right) is even sillier. There's no reason to be only "mildly pro-choice" if the fetus is tissue (in that case, abort-a-rama, baby, and who cares) and being pro-choice at all if the fetus is human is monstrous.
Do you get the feeling, as I do, that maybe she hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about this issue being preoccupied with foreign affairs and the WOT?