By Dave Andrusko

We have two stories today that deal with politics, as we are exactly three weeks away from the November 2 mid-term elections. Both are extremely revealing, for different reasons.

The publication POLITICO makes for fascinating reading. It's like hearing the Democratic Party talking to itself, full of warnings and grousing and admonitions and the like.

A headline for a piece today is "Democrats fear wipeout for women." Now, granted this is about DEMOCRATIC female officeholders, not REPUBLICAN female officeholders, but the reader is barely reminded that such an outcome would not necessarily be the end of female members of the House and Senate.

The nub of the story by Marin Cogan is that "Nearly a quarter of the 56 female Democrats in the House are considered vulnerable, including once rising star," and senators such as Barbara Boxer (Ca.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), and Patty Murray (Wa.) may be on the chopping block.

As I read the piece, I couldn't help thinking of Amanda Marcotte, whose post on a pro-abortion blog lumps all pro-lifers into one category: promoters of "male dominance" bent on "punishing women for sexual choices they don't like and keeping women dependent on men." (See Part One.)

By that I mean the suggestion in Cogan's story is hard to miss--that if Republican women (almost all of whom are pro-life, as it happens) start replacing Democratic women (almost all of whom are pro-abortion, as it happens), every step towards equality up to and including uninstalling "breast-feeding rooms for new mothers on the Hill" is at risk.

The real "danger," of course, is that being female and a member of the House or Senate will no longer be synonymous with being pro-abortion. What happens if a bunch of Sarah Palin's "Mama Grizzlies" take up residence on the Hill?

How about a return to sanity?

Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha