As a practical matter I’d say he was right. We can place some restrictions on abortion but the law as a whole will not change until a lot of people change their minds on abortion.
What is the point of that irrelevant post?
The pro-life movement is winning, now is not the time to surrender and start undercutting it.
Why would Paul start undercutting the pro-life movement, is it because it is a fundamental rejection of libertarianism, and it is now winning, and that once people switch to pro-life, that they gain a new awareness of the depth and meaning of the Christian right, and conservatism and start doubting the image that social issues are meaningless to the soul and future of America?