Abortion: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” That’s the definition provided by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, and it’s a pretty honest definition. For pro-lifers who believe in the sanctity of life, the goal is zero intentional deaths of human babies in utero.

Politically, in the United States today, reaching that goal seems nigh impossible — especially at the federal level. One political party has become grotesquely enamored with human sacrifice as one of its untouchable sacraments. Thanks to Democrats, the U.S. remains one of only seven nations in the world permitting abortion all the way through pregnancy. Even sending fewer taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood is a nonstarter for these radicals. The other party has become convinced that standing too firmly for life results in lost elections.

Millions of women believe that the only path to equality and freedom is to cast off the supposed shackles of having to carry a pregnancy to full term. They will fight — often quite angrily — for this supposed “right.” Ironically, abortion frees men from the responsibility that comes with sex, and “free love” has made for more single, struggling, and government-dependent moms than ever. Empowerment?

Is there really a compromise here that’s suitable? Is it okay to kill some babies, like those precious few conceived by rape or incest? Or the ones with Down syndrome? Is it okay to kill a baby who’s only five or 14 weeks gestation? Is there a compromise between God, the author of life, and Satan, the bringer of death?

If the polls provide the answer, it’s “yes.” Yet it’s also arguably the most powerful issue for single-issue voters on both sides, which indicates that the answer is “no.”

Enter Donald Trump. The former president hasn’t exactly been consistent on abortion during his career. He was once “very pro-choice” only to become “the most pro-life president” ever. He appointed the Supreme Court justices who rightly overturned Roe v. Wade, but he blamed abortion for Republican defeats since then. He recently offered support for a 15-week ban at the federal level only to say yesterday that “the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land.”

“You must follow your heart on this issue,” Trump added, “but remember: You must also win elections.” Following your heart is a terrible idea, but it’s one for another article. Yet if Republicans don’t win elections, radical pro-abortion Democrats will win instead.

Suffice it to say, Trump’s not an ideologue — about this or much of anything else. He’s a pragmatist who wants to win.

Nevertheless, the Leftmedia views its job as enraging people against him. Thus, we were treated to a Washington Post “analysis” story about his “cynical punt on abortion.” If he had again supported federal legislation, they’d have raged about that even harder. (Anyone waiting for the Post’s criticism of Joe Biden’s cynical vote-buying strategy of transferring student loan balances to taxpayers?)

Meanwhile, PolitiFact issued a “fact-check” focusing on Trump’s “false” assertion that Democrats even support “execution after birth.” Democrats did vote against legislation protecting babies who survive abortion attempts, but PolitiFact insists that would be “redundant under current law.” (Paging former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam.) And Trump is correct that Democrats “support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month.” Trump will, of course, never be precise, which opens him up to supposedly discrediting “fact-checks.”

Biden’s campaign blames Trump for the health struggles of a woman denied an abortion. Such emotional stories — many of them dishonest and deceptive — will be replayed countless times to make Republicans appear heartless.

Trump found himself under fire from his own side, too. Former Vice President Mike Pence wrote, “President Trump’s retreat on the Right to Life is a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him in 2016 and 2020.”

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham likewise had thoughts. “The states’ rights only rationale today runs contrary to an American consensus that would limit late-term abortions and will age about as well as the Dred Scott decision,” Graham said. “The science is clear — a child at fifteen weeks is well-developed and is capable of feeling pain.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said: “We respectfully disagree with him. Abortion is not a states’ rights question.” Currently, it is, and conservatives have argued just that for decades, but her point is understandable. Murder can be a federal crime, for one thing, and for another, Democrats have ensured that abortion is a federal issue whether Republicans like it or not. They will, Dannenfelser rightly noted, “wipe out states’ rights.”

As a final thought, making everything a federal issue is precisely why the political temperature seems so high. When everything is winner-takes-all, the stakes are incredibly high, and people get extremely angry. In the past, it led to war.

The War Between the States effectively ended on this day in 1865. Senator Graham mentioned Dred Scott, and we’re told that the war was fought over slavery (it’s far more complicated, but again, that’s an article for another time). In any case, if enslaving four million human beings was worth a war, what do we do about killing a million humans every year?

For now, Republicans must win elections, and pro-lifers must win hearts and minds while we save one life and one mom at a time.