Connor Lamb claims to be “personally opposed” to abortion. So even though he takes extreme pro-abortion positions (such as opposing a ban on abortion after five months) that is simply not good enough for the even more radical pro-aborts at Slate, who whine that Lamb is “essentially scolding women who’ve had abortions.”
Of course, the spin that Lamb is “personally opposed” to abortion is laughable. If he does believe that abortion is the termination of an innocent human life but opposes banning it after five months gestation, then he is a coward. Otherwise, he is a liar who is trying to soften the opposition to his radical pro-abortion stance with a facade of personal piety. He is a Pharisee who wants people to see him as personally righteous, without actually being righteous.
But the objection to Lamb’s statement that he is “personally opposed” to abortion is instructive. For militant pro-aborts, being “personally opposed” to abortion is unacceptable even if you support abortion “rights.” You must approve of and endorse abortion, or you are a bad person. Note this scold of pro-aborts for being “personally opposed” to abortion doesn’t apply elsewhere. You can be “personally opposed” to smoking but not support banning cigarettes, and not be scolded for “judging” smokers. But with abortion, you must be all-in and approve of it.
Such is the trademark of far too many Leftists on cultural issues: Advocating libertarian policies is not enough. You must endorse my choices, or else. They are not for tolerance. They are for mandatory acceptance.