Some of those who wish to find support among pro-life voters adopt the position that abortion should be "legal, but rare". Hillary Clinton's wikipedia entry has a quote saying (in part), "the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances". This position is logically indefensible, from a scientific standpoint. Either all human beings have rights, or only a privileged few do. The current law is that only people outside the womb have rights. The notion that murder should be "legal, but rare" is nonsense is obvious to everyone. But when the victim is microscopic or ugly, then the rules change.
Which brings me to another point. The president and Congress are engaged in a battle for power. This is not as unusual as people may think. Congress and the president are always jockeying to increase their respective powers. But some calls may be left to the Supreme Court. A stacked court may lead to the president winning more power than Congress would like. There is a way for Congress to side-step this issue.
An ammendment to the Constitution defining human life and guaranteeing the right to life for all human beings. This seems so obvious, who would be against this?
Then I wouldn't have to vote against all Democrats.