If ever there was a time for leadership in the Democratic Party on abortion, it is now.

Every day, I talk to Americans still looking for a presidential candidate. They find themselves unable to vote for either major candidate in good conscience. A change in their positions on abortion could make a difference.

Perhaps that’s why Hillary Clinton made reference to an “unborn person” on Meet the Press during this campaign cycle — an awareness that there are people she and her party completely alienate because of radicalism on abortion. But she didn’t actually give an inch on her position.

Despite President Bill Clinton vetoing a ban on partial-birth abortions twice, the “safe, legal and rare” language of his White House years was encouraging. It acknowledged that the prevalence of sonograms makes it harder to deny that there’s something that looks a lot like human life going on in a mother’s womb, way before delivery.

And yet, even with that language, one only had to listen to pro-choice activists over the last decade to know that there was not a lot of tolerance for what many Americans might consider reasonable restrictions on abortion. Putting the Hyde Amendment on the chopping block has long been on the wish lists of advocates for legal and expanded abortion. With Republican speakers of the House of late, that wasn’t happening. But with Catholic vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine giving cover for the position, this past week Planned Parenthood tweeted: “The Hyde Amendment isn’t just bad policy — it’s unpopular. Americans want abortion coverage for all!” with the hashtag #BeBoldEndHyde.

The Hyde Amendment is about government funding for abortion. Being “bold,” in this case, would be hubris. And it’s bad politics — if you’re honest about it.

Instead, Planned Parenthood buttresses its anti-Hyde campaign with a poll from Hart Research Associates that asks respondents to agree or disagree with the statement, “However we feel about abortion, politicians should not be allowed to deny a woman’s health coverage because she is poor.” Health coverage? What Hyde actually does is keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion. When you ask about that issue, as Marist did in July in polling commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, you learn that two-thirds of Americans agree Hyde is good policy.

Americans are a generous people who could never be completely comfortable with abortion. Many tolerate it because they want to know that a woman in a tough situation has a way out. Of course, “ways out” could include adoption, and for the sake of defending human life and families, we should do everything we can to make sure women know that is an option with support.

The fact of the matter is that, as lazy as it is to say “pro-lifers only care about life in the womb,” much of the country only knows the pro-life movement for what it is against. The faces and names and addresses of organizations who will walk with women and families and give them the help they need — like the Sisters of Life, Women Care Centers, maternity homes and crisis-pregnancy centers — need to become the same household names Planned Parenthood is.

Imagine for a moment: What if Hillary Clinton committed to codifying the Hyde Amendment and making it a formal law, so it would cease being a matter of endless, miserable debate? And what if she said that Planned Parenthood should no longer receive federal funding? She’d show some leadership of the kind we’ve long needed. At the same time, Clinton, who has been celebrated and endorsed by Planned Parenthood, could ask some celebrities and other friends of means to step up to the plate and support the organization. In that case, it would be free of government entanglement.

While he was speaker of the House, former Republican congressman John Boehner from Ohio argued that making Hyde law once and for all would have made for a more transparent debate over Obamacare. Instead, those who worried about conscience violations were dismissed as liars. Democrats wouldn’t put their cards on the table.

The party platforms, are, of course, set — and allegiances are clear. But this has been a wild election. Why not wish for something else out of the ordinary to happen? Like leadership on an issue that has been mired by dishonesty and manipulation?

Hillary Clinton isn’t going to change her position on abortion tomorrow. And while many would still have serious reasons to vote against her, she could offer an olive branch, and a real one. Be honest, disentangle the government, and let the cultural debate be had without endless political shouting matches. It would be a start — a baby step toward a healthier politics.

Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, editor-at-large of National Review Online and founding director of Catholic Voices USA. She can be contacted at klopez@nationalreview.com.