A mere 48 hours after taking office, President Bush angered abortion-rights advocates by issuing an executive order barring U.S. government aid to international family-planning groups that perform abortions or provide abortion counseling. According to abortion-rights advocates, this executive order will cause untold suffering to millions of poor women around the world-not only by preventing them from having abortions, but by denying funds for other reproductive health services. However, it is unclear how much of an impact the order will have on international family planning programs. While I strongly believe that abortion should be a legal option for women, I also believe that on this issue the pro-choice movement is fighting the wrong battle, both as a matter of principle and as a matter of strategy.

The most powerful pro-choice argument is that a woman's decision about something so personal, as whether to bear a child, should be free from government interference. A fundamental belief in individual rights has led a majority of Americans to support legal abortion, at least in the early stages. But, asking the government to finance abortion is a very different matter. The argument that these programs should continue to receive U.S. aid so long as they don't use the money directly for abortion-related services is a dodge. Money is fungible.

A substantial minority of Americans believe that abortion should be outlawed. I don't believe that they should be able to force their moral and religious values on the rest of us, but I do think we owe them the basic respect of ensuring that their tax dollars are not used to subsidize a procedure they find abhorrent. It is a way of recognizing that their values matter.

But there are many people on the pro-choice side who are unwilling to admit their opponents have any legitimate concerns. In the new book Manifesta: Young Women, Feminisim, and the Future, writers and activists Jennifer Baumgarder and Amy Richards envision a feminist utopia in which abortion is not only fully funded by the government but is no longer "morally contested territory," since "citizens don't interfere with one another's life choices."

Such arrogance only further polarizes the debate. In the real world, the moral contest over abortion is likely to continue. It will require some compromise solutions if we are to maintain the current uneasy equilibrium. One such compromise is to preserve legal abortion while withholding public funds for the practice.

If those of us who are pro-choice want to ensure that poor women around the world have access to abortion, we should reach into our own pockets. Emphasizing nongovernmental aid as the solution would be not only principled but smart. If the pro-choice movement had turned to this option in 1985, it would already have a solid network of privately funded programs whose budget would not be affected by the results of presidential or congressional elections. Abortion-rights advocates should realize that as long as the government picks up the tab, the programs they support will be vulnerable to political pressures and to the winds of political change.