Editor's note. Please read Part Two which discusses what actually does reduce the number of abortions and what will assuredly increase the number of dead babies. Please write to me at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

When we look back at 2008 my strong suspicion is that it will be seen in retrospect as a referendum on the power of subtle (and not so subtle) intimidation. Will people allow themselves to be talked out of their convictions on the specious grounds that somehow what they believe in is insufficiently important in this "historic" year?

For three decades single-issue voters have been lectured that they are missing the "big picture," that abortion is merely "one among many issues." Unless they see why mobilizing to restore the sanctity of human life is decisive, some will be peeled off. The following is intended to help everyone understand why a candidate's position on abortion is, and ought to be, decisive. There are dozens of different reasons, I have chosen five.

#1. Americans have a long history of voting on the basis of a single issue. Slavery is the most obvious example. Likewise today, millions of Americans will cast their ballot this November based on where a candidate is on a host of different issues. Why is that acceptable but not pulling the lever because a man or woman promises to continue the comeback from the devastating damage inflicted by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?

#2. Just to clear away the underbrush, no one has ever said that abortion is the only issue of significance. But abortion is the overarching issue, whose importance is greater than all others. Earlier this month Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pennsylvania, released a wonderful pastoral letter in advance of Respect Life Sunday. In it he quoted from his predecessor, Bishop James Timlin, who wrote the following in 2000.

"Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God's commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate."

Bishop Joseph Martino added, "Being 'right' on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: The finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that 'pro-choice' candidates have come to support homicide -- the gravest injustice a society can tolerate -- in the name of social justice.'"

#3. Ask yourself this. Would anyone disagree that there are positions a candidate could hold that would disqualify him or her? Would anyone vote for someone who said that the way out of current economic situation is to eliminate private property? Or who said that you had to make a certain amount of money in order to vote? Of course not. Prof. Michael Pakaluk recently put it this way: "A single-issue is, strictly, a disqualifying issue, because it involves a policy that would destroy something essential to the well-being of a free society. For instance, someone who supported slavery or segregation as a matter of principle has adopted a position which, because of its destructiveness for a free society, disqualifies him from reasonable consideration for office."

#4. Critics say that even if there is a plausible case that single-issue voting is as American as Apple Pie and is the most important issue, it's futile. We've had pro-life Presidents and abortion is still legal. You know the response before I make it, but let me just mention a couple of points.

Let me quote from columnist Colleen Carroll Campbell who wrote last week, "But voters who doubt a pro-life president's effect should visit the website of NARAL Pro-Choice America, where they can find a laundry list of [President George] Bush's sins against the abortion lobby.

Among the highlights: Bush banned the use of taxpayer money to support abortions overseas. He signed such landmark legislation as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the first federal law to ban an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade. And he appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who helped form the court majority that narrowly upheld the partial-birth abortion ban. NARAL and its allies know that the next president's abortion policies matter more than ever before."

To add to that, never forget that in spite of the all-out campaign waged by the Abortion Establishment, the pro-abortion Congressional Democratic Leadership, and the "mainstream media," abortions dropped a stunning 8% between 2000 and 2005. The 1.2 million abortions performed in 2005 is down 25% since when the number peaked in 1990. Put another way nearly one in three pregnant women aborted in the early 1980s. By 2005, the proportion is closer to one in five. That is a huge difference.

Be proud that your single-issue voting is on behalf of the most defenseless. If we don't speak up for her, who will?

Part Two -- What Reduces the Number of Abortions?