FROM THE PRESIDENT
By Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

IT'S TIME TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Elections are always important, but what happens on November 7, 2000, will be especially important. I'm not talking about taxes and budget deficits and surpluses, nor about prosperity and shoring up the defense of this country against enemies from abroad. I am talking about the government ending up on the right or the wrong side of the fundamental moral problem of our time: Will the results of Election Day 2000 support the Declaration of Independence and advance the "unalienable right to life" or will they certify a pro-abortion government bent on promoting the "culture of death"? It is an old cliché that "in a democratic system the country gets the government it deserves." The general point is that with the opportunity to vote comes responsibility for the outcomethough people voting "correctly" might find themselves in the losing minority. It's tempting then to refuse responsibility. But did the "correctly"-voting losers do everything they could and ought to have done? Did they pursue losing strategies that produced the very opposite of what they intended? To avoid that fate, pro- lifers ought to act with determination but think clearly before they act so that they do, in fact, get the government they want and deserve.

The pro-abortionists know exactly what's at stake in November. Even though Bill Clinton vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act twice, he couldn't protect them from the public relations disaster that arose from the spirited debate over the cruel practice. And while unrestricted abortion on demand was the only "principle" that Bill Clinton didn't abandon in his efforts to stay in power, abortion "rights" didn't advance beyond his very destructive executive orders undoing the pro-life policies of the Reagan-Bush presidencies. (Don't misunderstand me, these actions were very bad; butthanks to hard work by pro-lifers and pro-life majorities in Congress after the 1994 electionsthey fell far short of the pro-abortionists' hopes of quickly enacting the infamous "Freedom of Choice Act" and making abortion on demand an integral part of health care "reform.") In short, during eight years of a pro-abortion presidency the pro-abortionists were forced mainly to play defense.

Frustrated and alarmed by the loss of public support for the radical abortion agenda, pro-abortionists want to get beyond just blocking and undoing pro-life policies. Their goal still is to institutionalize and culturally "mainstream" abortion on demand so that it would be practically impossible to make it again illegal. On Election Day they want to put all positions of power into the hands of committed pro-abortionists. They want (1) a pro-abortion president who will sign legislation advancing abortion rights here and abroad, veto any pro-life legislation, andmost importantlyappoint committed pro-abortionists to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary and bureaucracy; (2) a pro-abortion leadership in Congress that will promote anti-life legislation, suppress pro-life legislation, and clear pro- abortion presidential appointees; and (3) decisive pro-abortion majorities in both houses of Congress.

As things stand at present, the pro-abortionists can in fact hope to (1) get a staunchly pro-abortion president in Al Gore; (2) make the once-pro-life-now-pro-abortion Dick Gephardt (currently Democratic Minority Leader in the House) the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and (3) cause pro-life losses in Congress large enough so that enacting pro-life legislation would become very difficult. They have a good chance of achieving that only if pro-lifers are complacent or unwilling to do what the job requires. You can be certain of one thing: The pro-abortionists will "do whatever it takes," and they will have plenty of money and media help doing it.

The first step for pro-lifers is not to underestimate what they are facing.

Many pro-abortion candidates are formidable campaigners. And they have the media, the pro-abortion advocacy groups, and a lot of very wealthy contributors on their side. Moreover, Bill Clinton will do everything to help elect pro-abortion Democrats; after the flood of scandals he wants to leave office with a sense of vindication.

In short, pro-life candidates will face tough campaigns everywherefrom the courthouse to the White House. And for all pro-lifers it will be time to stand up and be counted. In practice this means that the pro-life movement's effort must be relentless, tactically smart, and strategically sound. And every pro-lifer must take a constructive part in that effort. The " constructive" part includes prayerful and hard work, significant sacrifices of time and money, and aligning individual effort with sound regional and national strategies.

Posturing, forever questioning the commitment of pro-life candidates, "making a statement," not voting or voting "out of principle" for third-party candidates who can't win (thus ensuring the victory of a pro-abortionist over a supposedly less-than- perfect pro-lifer)all this amounts to a betrayal of the right-to- life cause. It amounts to being AWOL, wasting precious resources, sowing dissension in the ranks, and even (unintentionally but foolishly) aiding the enemy. Such misguided "effort" may be relentless, but it is neither tactically smart nor strategically sound.

At NRLC we believe that pro-lifers must keep their focus on the strategic goal of constitutional protection for human life while employing every tactical device available to us for advancing our goal and undermining the "culture of death." The point is to act from principle in order to make a productive difference rather than a mere "statement."

The next president will be either the pro-life Republican or the pro-abortion Democrat and not a third-party candidate. It is, therefore, completely absurd for a pro-lifer to talk of not voting or supporting an unelectable third-party candidate. Withholding one's vote from the pro-life candidate of a major party in order to make a "statement" or casting a protest vote for the sake of "principle" gives the advantage to the pro- abortionist. To do that is unprincipled and hurts the right-to- life cause.

The situation is really quite simple. While a majority of voters is opposed to unrestricted abortion on demand, currently only a fairly small percentage of voters considers abortion the overriding issue in an election. Of those who do, a majority favors the pro-life position. That is enough to swing the election to a competitive pro-life candidate in a close race of major-party candidates. And that makes the right difference! Throwing the pro-life vote away on an unelectable third-party candidate makes the wrong difference.

I'm counting on you to work hard, sacrifice, and make the right difference.