Jonathan Ichikawa quotes an email from someone arguing that the consistent pro-choice position is to support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I think this is right. The pro-choice position is, officially, that women should have the legal right to make a decision whether to kill their fetus or refrain from doing so. There's no presumption that killing the fetus is a good or bad thing. It could be a very bad thing that women have a right to do, as far as the official pro-choice view is concerned. What no one has a right to do, however, even according to the pro-choice view, is to kill someone else's fetus, at least without their permission (or else abortion itself wouldn't be allowed). So this would be a kind of violence every pro-choice person should oppose.
That makes me wonder what's driving this opposition to the act. Some of it is just inconsistency or stupidity, not realizing what follows from their own views. Some just don't realize that pro-choice arguments can be concocted without assuming a fetus to be a non-person without rights (as Judith Jarvis Thomson famously tried to do) and therefore that personhood and giving rights to fetuses isn't automatically going to make every abortion morally wrong. Other premises need to enter in for that conclusion (though I happen to think they're by and large true premises). Others may just not be realizing what really does follow from the official pro-choice position, which for some could just be a mark of inconsistency, but for some it may well be a sign that they aren't really pro-choice to begin with but rather (gasp!) pro-abortion, as pro-lifers often unfortunately assert of everyone holding a pro-choice view (usually out of ignorance of the pro-choice position). I have to wonder if some leaders of the pro-choice movement, such as many in Planned Parenthood and others with a financial interest vested in continued fetus-killing, really do have such a base motive for opposing this bill. Moloch worship!
Update: Keith Burgess-Jackson posts more of the letter than Jonathan posted. It seems the author of the letter drew the same conclusion I did (or rather the same conclusion about a larger group of people than I'd insist on applying it to).