A mere ban on partial-birth abortion doesn't go far enough. She can't get behind any legislation that allows a single child to be killed. Anything short of the full pro-life position is an unacceptable compromise. I respect those like Judie Brown driven by principle, but in this case her application of principle is mistaken. Brown is right to vote her conscience, but her conscience is not properly informed in this case, so her decision is misdirected.
Goodness requires more than making a moral statement.
Rather, it requires having a moral impact. His Democratic opponent, Barbara Boxer, had no such scruples. Consequently, Boxer prevailed. Thus, when one intervenes in a situation judged evil in order to correct it for the better, and when the action is not evil in itself, such an action should be considered not as the voluntary acceptance of the lesser evil, but rather as the effective improvement of the existing situation, even though one remains aware that not all evil present is able to be eliminated for the moment. This is not a compromise.