Democrats have paid a heavy price for demanding that their elected representatives support unrestricted access to abortion. In 1980, Democrats dominated the House of Representatives with 292 members; 125 of them were pro-life. Now there are only 201 Democrats in the House, and no more than 40 are pro-life. None are in leadership.

Abortion activists’ hard-line refusal to moderate has emboldened the Democrat base but cost them widespread support. Many Americans believe that at least some legal protections for unborn children are worthy – a position that is anathema to the pro-choice movement. Activists claim that 80% of the public supports legalized abortion, but their greatest fear is that Roe v. Wade might be overturned.

Pro-choice advocates fight most of their political battles in the courts because they worry about abortion laws being decided by the democratic process on a state-by-state basis. And they probably have good reason to worry. While the pro-choice base is strong, as reflected in the million people it turned out for its 2005 March for Women’s Lives, activists will be the first to tell you that 400 restrictions on abortion have been enacted throughout the country in the last decade.

If the pro-choice position is as popular as pro-choice leaders claim, how have pro-lifers racked up so many political wins?

The pro-choice movement ought to be reflecting on this state of affairs. Instead, two new books from activists with the National Abortion Rights Action League highlight how tone-deaf the movement has become. They dismiss the views of religious Americans, fail to understand the complexity of the abortion issue, and resort to histrionic declarations of doom.

A former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Kate Michelman, gives a personal look at the modern history of abortion rights in America in “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Life Spent Protecting the Right To Choose” (Hudson Street Press, 278 pages, $24.95). She begins with a touching account of her fourth pregnancy, which occurred just before her husband left her for another woman.

This being prior to Roe v. Wade, Ms. Michelman had to convince a medical review board of her unfitness as a mother in order to receive an abortion. Then she had to get permission from her philandering husband. Ms. Michelman writes that she has “never, not once, questioned my choice to have that abortion.” The merits of such consistency aside, the lack of rumination is carried on through the next 200 pages of this light and unreflective memoir.

I suppose that something interesting must have happened in the pro-choice movement over the last three decades, but if so, Ms. Michelman keeps it secret. Instead she recounts mind-numbingly boring, predictable, and platitudinous conversations about abortion laws and judicial appointments with dozens of lawmakers. Ms. Michelman narrates all stories with herself as the perfect hero, receiving praise from all political corners.

NARAL Pro-Choice New York’s Cristina Page writes a book that fails to even attempt to live up to its title: “How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America” (Basic Books, 256 pages, $24). Instead, its bizarre thesis is that pro-life groups do not attempt to prevent abortion. Rather, “they are against sex, and the sex lives the vast majority of Americans enjoy.”

Her odd claim that pro-lifers oppose sex for pleasure would be laughable were it not espoused with vehemence. A book that critically responds to the political work of either side of the abortion debate would be welcome. Instead, she puts the worst possible construction on a few select positions, notably a view among some pro-life advocates that contraception is to be eschewed. She also conflates pro-life opposition to abortifacients with opposition to all contraception.

Physicians who refuse to prescribe morning-after pills are “kooky” and “outrageous.” Their “dubious religious notions” cause them to engage in “vigilante acts of obstruction-by-pharmacist.” Apparently she believes women should not be forced to have children they accidentally conceived, but pharmacists should be forced to act against their conscience.

Ms. Page is the Ann Coulter of the pro-choice movement. Not only are reports that abortion causes lingering psychological damage false, but girls who have abortions actually function better. Besides, everyone knows that postpartum depression is a more legitimate concern for women.

After calling President Reagan a “fundamentalist” and making an obligatory comparison of pro-lifers and Iranian mullahs, Ms. Page writes that the pro-choice movement “has been the realistic movement. And if, as a result, it has given up the high ground of deeply felt, religious intoned ‘values,’ it has gained something else. It has science.”

Apart from Ms. Page’s mocking of religious views and contention that science is on her side, It seems that the pro-choice movement is the one in thrall to ideology. The pro-life movement’s tactics of fighting for incremental political gains in state legislatures and court appointments is much more pragmatic than the pro-choice movement’s rigid refusal to concede any ground against abortion on demand.

Both Ms. Michelman and Ms. Page claim in their books that the right to abortion in some 30 states would likely be lost if Roe falls. With yesterday’s confirmation of pro-life judge Samuel Alito’s to the closely divided court, their concern may be legitimate. So why aren’t these abortion advocates reaching out to the hearts and minds of American voters, instead of writing books for their devoted fans?

Ms. Ziegler last wrote in these pages on Kate Bush.