The best solution is robust federalism. Forgo Roe, and let each state set its own policies on abortion. Those for whom abortion is an important fundamental right can live in areas where abortions are widely available. Those adamantly opposed to any and all abortions can live in jurisdictions that ban the procedure. People like me could live in communities where our tax dollars won't be funding abortions.The problem here is that this is what abortion opponents have been calling for all along. Notwithstanding the occasional call for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion at the federal level, most pro-lifers have been asking for states to be allowed to set their own abortion policies. Pro-choicers object because they know that would result in a total ban in some states.
For that reason, I don’t think the word “compromise” applies to Radley’s proposal, whatever its substantive merits might be. It might constitute an intellectual compromise between those who think abortion should be legal everywhere and those who think it should be legal nowhere. But who needs an intellectual compromise? The whole point of a compromise is to achieve practical agreement in a divisive situation. That means each side has to give up something in the context of the real-world political situation. Taking the current pro-life stance and proposing it as a “compromise” doesn’t fit the bill, because it gives the pro-choicers nothing in return for their concession.
Note to commenters: I am not (here) taking a position on abortion per se. I’m just taking issue with Radley’s notion of what constitutes a compromise.