Editor's note. Please your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

"There are so many people here!"
     Unidentified young lady at today's March for Life.

The annual March for Life drew a huge crowd to the nation's capital.

There were a number of new wrinkles in the 36th annual March for Life, some of which I caught and others I'm sure I missed. This included everything from the exact starting point to the route walked to the time at which the police cleared the street of traffic.

What didn't change were the numbers: they were huge.

Most news accounts will take the safe route: the description will be of "thousands" or "tens of thousands" of pro-life marchers. But writing on USA Today's "Faith and Reason" blog, Cathy Lynn Grossman casually mentions, "Still, anyone can see hundreds of thousands of marchers pulling into town."

Breaking with my own tradition (I've covered 27), after grabbing my final photos in front of the Supreme Court, instead of hightailing it back to the office, I backtracked all the way to its tail end. It stretched a long, long way.

Obviously, no matter how much I much I read or skim, I see only a tiny, tiny portion of all the news coverage that relates to abortion. Ditto for what pro-abortions are saying on their web pages and in their comments to reporters.

But my strong sense is that with few exceptions, everyone who covers the Movement--or opposes it--grasps what the March today illustrated. Whatever the results last November, it is not in the DNA of pro-lifers to quit.

That is a major reason (the other is to keep up the illusion of "moderation") that pro-abortions and the mainstream media haven't written the usual "good, they are dead, and good riddance" stories by the bushel full. They know we are already coming back stronger than ever. (See virtually the entire January issue of NRL News devoted to "Stopping Obama's Abortion Agenda.") Still and all it was odd not to hear the President's voice congratulating us for assembling from all over the country in the nation's capital. Only silence from the White House and pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

Let me revise that statement. We are hearing a lot about Obama ending the pro-life Mexico City Policy as early as sometime today--the first volley in what will doubtless be a cascade of anti-life initiatives.

Without retracing this at any great length, the long and the short of the policy is that it denies U.S. population-control funding to organizations that "perform or actively promote abortion" in foreign countries. There are plenty of agencies willing to abide by that restriction.

When Obama nullifies that policy the result will be to re-direct a substantial amount of the pool of U.S. "population assistance" funds away from overseas groups that avoid involvement in abortion, and into the hands of groups that are ideologically committed to expanding access to abortion.
So much for "reducing" the number of abortions.

Each year, whether the weather is frigid, wet, or (as was the case today) sunny and mild, I come away from the rally with renewed vigor and pep. It's almost impossible not to be, so enthusiastic are the tens of thousands of young people and so inspired are the speeches from elected officials. (Part Two is the remarks of Cong. Chris Smith, who co-chairs the House Pro-Life Caucus.) Several alluded to various sections of President Obama's inaugural address. While he had not intended to include the unborn within their sweep, Obama's remarks spoke eloquently to the reason why the little ones SHOULD be included. I wrote about a couple of them yesterday but missed the most important one of all:

"The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God- given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to purse their full measure of happiness."
Indeed, all are equal, including the most vulnerable among us, the unborn child.

Please read Part Two: "Obama--Abortion President?"