These seem to me to be suggestive of a single complaint — that even pro-choice Republicans should admit that Roe and Casey are bad law and should be overturned on that constitutional ground alone. Then this kabuki dance of substitutive/transitive cultural cues could be dispensed with, Republicans could reclaim ‘being pro-choice’ as a prudential disposition about which reasonable people can differ in a constitutional democracy (instead of a conviction about the character of abortion as a quasi-human right), and Mitt Romney could pivot movement conservatives away from Palin once and for all.Uh, what if pro-choice conservatives think (gasp) Roe and Casey are valid law? The central notion that underpins the entire pro-life compromise discussion is that it is simply an article of faith that Roe and Casey are badly decided. But that's not a universal opinion by any stretch of the imagination. Saying "well, if we could just throw out Roe and Casey we could have a conversation about abortion compromise" is like saying "well, if we could just throw out the Second Amendment, we could have a conversation about gun control compromise." Internally consistent statements that nevertheless have little salience for real life.
And the operative question is, why on earth would pro-choice people feel compelled to compromise on anything now? After the most glaring and demoralizing defeat of ideology that supports the pro-life cause? As Ross admits in his op/ed, the chances of Roe and Casey being meaningfully challenged went from slim to very slim on November 4th. This conversation centers around the prerequisites for a "grand bargain" style compromise when the pro-life side is in absolutely no position to negotiate. Ross's hypothetical situation where the pro-life base might compromise has become kind of irrelevant, if you don't mind my saying so. It's someone talking about the conditions in which his movement might compromise, if things break just the right way, while his newly emboldened and empowered opposition goes about the business of advancing its own agenda. The time for conservatives to compromise on abortion was when they held the Presidency, the congress, and were remaking the courts. But, of course, it's the nature of politics to want to act triumphantly in times of ascendancy, so that probably couldn't have happened.
Update: The more I think about all this abortion compromise business, the more it becomes clear to me that this is a simple case of people being upset that they don't have the kind of consensus support they need to effect change they want. Well, look, there's plenty of changes liberals would like to make if we could gin up the support for it. We could abolish the electoral college, which benefits conservatives beyond their numerical support. We could tie Senate seats to population instead of rewarding low-population states like Wyoming with the same number of Senators as California, which does the same. Can't do it, though, because we lack the kind of broad majorities that are required to make that kind of change. Same thing with outlawing abortion. I understand the pro-life side is very passionate. But you lack the kind of broad public consensus necessary to outlaw abortion. I'm sure that's frustrating, but that's the American system.
The whole "nobody voted on it" argument is just a dodge. No conservatives agitate against the Supreme Court case overturning the DC handguns ban, no conservatives agitate against Brown vs. Board of Ed (anymore), few dedicated Republicans complain about Gore vs. Bush. If you want to change the entire court-review system of enforcing constitutionality, that's a project you can start, but when you apply that complaint completely arbitrarily based on the political content of individual cases, you make your argument a joke.