As we get back into the swing of things, let me first say I hope each and everyone of you had a wonderful and blessed Christmas. And let me add a special thanks to those who responded to the December 23 and 24 editions.

Speaking of past editions, on December 12 and again on December 15 I wrote about the vast grab bag of proposals the Abortion Establishment submitted to the Obama transition team. I hesitate to call it a wish list for the simple reason that the 55-page laundry list sent by about 50 pro-abortion organizations constitutes pretty much what you would expect President-elect Obama to embrace wholeheartedly.

Our folks read that the proposal could be found on the transition's team website and that they could comment.

And, in droves, they went to http://change.gov/open_government/entry/advancing_reproductive_rights_and_health_in_a_new_administration.
What is fascinating to me is not that pro-lifers would take the opportunity to post their opinion on a vast array of initiatives, the main thrust of which would be to insinuate the abortion ethos ever deeper into our cultural fabric, obliterate all pro-life gains, and funnel hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the coffers of the Abortion Industry. Why wouldn't they?

What struck me was the response of US News & World Report's Dan Gilgoff, who covers religion for the magazine. He got wind that pro-lifers had been alerted and that of the subsequent responses, "Most--almost all, in fact--appear to be from abortion rights opponents."

Nothing new--to us--in that. As we will talk about at length in the special January 22 Commemorative Issue, pro-lifers have long since grown adept in using the Internet to communicate and activate. [See Part Two, "Stopping Obama's Abortion Agenda.")

Gilgoff was impressed by the tone of the responses. "Comments areas are notorious for their nastiness," he wrote, "but I'm struck by the respectful tone of these protests."

But having drawn that straight-forward conclusion, he rhetorically asks, "Does it mean pro-lifers see Obama as a different kind of Democrat, more willing to listen to their concerns than has traditionally been the case? In that regard, the civil tone suggests that Obama might be able to make headway with pro-lifers with policies that reduce demand for abortions without restricting abortion rights."

Two thoughts on this. No one but those who were willfully delusional throughout the campaign have any illusions about the depth of Obama's commitment to the abortion agenda. There were some self-described pro-life "progressives" who needed a reason to vote for a hard-core pro-abortionist. They accomplished this by fastening together bits and pieces of throwaway lines to create an imaginary candidate who would transcend the usual divides.

Anyone with ears to hear knows that everything about President-elect Obama screams out that he cares not a twit about reducing the number of abortions. You can't oppose parental involvement laws, the Hyde Amendment, women's right to know laws, on the one hand, and be in favor of integrating abortion into a national health care program and passing the radically pro-abortion "Freedom of Choice Act," on the other hand, and not know that millions of more babies will die.

Those who wrote to http://change.gov/open_government/entry/advancing_reproductive_rights_and_health_in_a_new_administration did so out of a conviction that it would be irresponsible not to alert the incoming Obama Administration of the storm that awaits once it begins to implement its pro-abortion policies--and to exercise their rights as citizens. As for the tone, well, of course pro-lifers would be respectful. That's who we are.

But if Gilgoff misreads pro-lifers on this score, he does get something else right: "[T]he volume of comments also shows that the pro-life movement is very much engaged right now and can be quickly activated." Obama will "face a firestorm of criticism," Gilgoff wrote, if "he removes Bush-era abortion restrictions, as expected--like banning U.S. funds from going to foreign groups that offer or promote abortion in family planning services."

Gilgoff is also correct when he concludes that should Obama "move beyond such traditionally Democratic policies to actually expand abortion rights through a law like FOCA, pro-lifers would go ballistic."

The obvious question is how will Obama factor in the anticipated pro-life criticism as he moves his--and the Abortion Establishment's--agenda forward? It could and likely would change his timing, to be sure.

But only pro-lifers whet behind the ears are so naive as to believe that Obama would take a pass on advancing the public policy objectives of PPFA and NARAL and kindred souls. He, and the pro-abortion congressional leadership, will try in every way it can to promote them.

Our job will be to thwart them at every possible turn and minimize the damage when we can't. Again, please go to Part Two where you can order many additional copies of the Special January NRL News edition, "Stopping Obama's Abortion Agenda."

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com