THE WAY THINGS ARE BEFORE NOVEMBER

To understand what the state of the right to life is now we should recall where things stood in late 1992 and early 1993.

Plainly, we had a disaster on our hands. The country had elected its first zealously pro-abortion president and vice president. Pro-abortionists had taken over the Democratic Party. Pro- abortion Democrats controlled Congress. Pro-abortionists appeared to be in charge on all levels and branches of the government.

In a long position paper, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League presented its legislative demands to a newly elected President

Clinton and his never-elected "co-president" Hillary Rodham Clinton. Henceforth, the massive power of the federal government was to be used to sweep away even the slightest obstacle to abortion on demand, and a massive government-controlled health care systemdesigned by Hillary Rodham Clintonwas to make abortion on demand a routine, no-questions-asked health care " option." On assuming office, Clinton immediately issued his now infamous executive orders that rescinded pro-life policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations. And the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley (D-Wa.), confidently declared that the pro-abortionists' favorite piece of legislation, the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), would quickly pass in the new Congress. The Hyde Amendment to the budget was targeted for defeat in order to funnel your tax dollars into the coffers of abortionists. Instead of a pro-life President Bush, ready to sign pro-life legislation and veto pro- abortion bills, there was now Bill Clintonabout whom not much more need be said.

It was supposed to be a total and permanent victory for the pro- abortionists. Of course, if the experts were always right in their predictions that team A is sure to beat team B, the actual game wouldn't have to be played. But the prediction turned out to be wrong: We, the pro-lifers, showed up for the game. FOCA never became law. Hillary Clinton's abortion-promoting and health care- rationing plan never was enacted.

The situation reminded me of the day in 1973 when the Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. On that day I was "manning" a table with pro-life literature in the student union building of West Virginia University. A young woman came by and, in a superior tone, told me, "You can go home now; it's over." I have been "manning" the pro-life table ever since! It was on that very day that, like me, pro-lifers by the hundreds of thousands really began to fight for the right to life. At the low point in 1992-93, too, it was once again not time to go home but to rededicate ourselves to the struggle. For that we have already been rewarded.

There are important lessons, especially for the current situation, to be learned from the reasons why we got to the low point in 1992-93.

It is true that much of the blame goes to the "mainstream" press, the "institutional" media. "Slick Willie" Clinton was their man, no matter what. (Right now, some of them may not like Bill Clinton, but they still like other pro-abortion politicians.) But as important as the media's support was, it wasn't enough.

It was also the people who voted against George Bush and/or voted for Ross Perot who helped Bill Clinton win with a mere 43% of the vote. People who withheld their votes from George Bush in 1992 and from Bob Dole in 1996 because they didn't consider them perfect candidates, people who didn't vote or voted for unelectable third-party candidates in order to punish Republican candidates because (in their estimate) the party was "not pro- life enough"they in effect provided the margin of victory for Bill Clinton and many other pro-abortion candidates. Do these voters now realize what they have done? Will they repeat their mistake?

So let's be honest: We reached the low point in 1992-93 at least in part because misguided voters, intent on teaching some pro- life candidates a lesson, directly or indirectly helped pro- abortionists win. They did not serve the pro-life cause. The voters who used their votes wisely and elected pro-life senators and representatives in 1992, 1994, and 1996 deserve the credit for at first helping frustrate Bill Clinton's pro-abortion agenda and then establishing pro-life majorities in Congress. They were the true pro-life voters. And let's be honest about another thing, too:

NRLC's lobbying in Congress, sound legislative program, and educational efforts were essential ingredients for the pro-life success since the low point of 1992-93. Our friends and opponents in Congress know this. That is why Fortune magazine lists NRLC as the 10th most effective lobbying group in Washington, D.C.the only single-issue pro-life group to be listed among the top 120 lobbying groups. To get to this position we needed your consistent support. To grow in influence and advance the pro-life cause further we now need even more support from you.

Our first success on the way up from the low point in 1992-93 was the defeat of FOCA. Then we kept the Hyde Amendment on the books. And we were instrumental in defeating the disastrous Clinton Health Care Plan. After that we started our campaign to ban partial-birth abortions.

Twice passed in Congress with increasing majorities, only to be vetoed twice by Bill Clinton, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has already had a profound effect, even though it has not yet become law. The debate over partial-birth abortions has destroyed the credibility of the pro-abortion pressure groups and their friends in the abortion industry. And it has greatly lessened support for unrestricted abortion rights. Fewer and fewer want to defend the indefensible. The tide is turning.

The election in November has the potential to produce enough pro- life senators and representatives to pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act over Clinton's veto and enact more of the pro- life agenda. For starters, there is the Child Custody Protection Act that would impede the secret cross-border abortion traffic involving teenagers. Then there is the Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act that would put an obstacle before physician- assisted suicide and euthanasia. All these efforts, however, would go nowhere if pro-abortionists keep enough seats to sustain a Clinton veto. Believe me, they are working hard to do just that. And they are spending large amounts of money to achieve their goal.

What will you do?