"The Return of the Anti-Abortion Democrat"

Amy Sullivan has this piece, "The Return of the Anti-Abortion Democrat," in the Nov. 13 issue of The New Republic.  Much of the piece focuses on Bill Ritter, a Catholic, who is running for governor in Colorado.

For a different view, see this recent op-ed, which ran in a Colorado paper, called "Getting off the Ritter Bandwagon."  The author notes that his enthusiasm at the prospect of a pro-life Democrat was diminished once Ritter made it clear -- as he has -- that he does not support legislative restrictions on abortion.  Indeed, as Sullivan notes:

[Ritter] would have no agenda to change the current law regarding abortion as governor. He would overturn an executive order issued by Republican Governor Bill Owens disqualifying women's health clinics from getting state funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs if they also provided abortions.  And he would sign legislation allowing emergency contraception, a bill that Owens had vetoed.

I know we've discussed this matter many times here on MOJ, and I know that many of my colleagues disagree, but it simply is not clear to me why a candidate should be regarded as "pro-life" just because he / she is not only (a) "personally opposed" to abortion but also (b) supports social-welfare policies that, he or she hopes, will reduce the number of abortions, if (c) he or she is not willing to de-fund and regulate the practice, (d) he or she supports a constitutional regime which disables legislatures from debating and acting on the issue, and (e) he or she accepts money from abortion-rights interest groups.  This goes for the other candidates the article discusses, too (e.g., Casey, Tim Kaine, etc.).