WHAT IS AT STAKE?

As I sat down to write this last editorial before the November 7 elections, evidently my computer was as bleary eyed as I was for it immediately began protesting. Already hopelessly behind schedule, I had no time to negotiate terms of a settlement.

In the spirit of I've-been-there-myself, a colleague graciously allowed me to hammer away at her PC. I grabbed a cup of coffee (for energy), rubbed my eyes (to bring them into focus), and settled in to write something I hoped and prayed would be memorable.

But I had not even lifted my fingers in the direction of the keyboard when my eyes snapped onto a picture that hangs just over the monitor. Most people would smile; isn't that cute. And it is. However, as pro-lifers, we are blessed, ethically, with a kind of peripheral vision. This wider, broader vision allows us to see what others, who look only straight ahead, can not.

Fifteen adorable babies of all nationalities and races are propped up on pillows, some looking at the camera, others looking sideways at their neighbor, as if pondering whether to take a poll on the question of favorite disposable diaper. They are a wonderful reminder of how cute little babies are--the good news--and a stark reminder--the awful news--that each year four of every 15 babies conceived in our great nation are brutally liquidated.

If we were to believe the pundits, (almost never a good move), the 2000 presidential election lacks high drama, people aren't inspired, and, if they could, most would phone their votes in. This jaundiced put-down is often accompanied by the complementary complaint that at a time of "peace and prosperity," nothing "big" is at stake.

I disagree.

When the next presidential election cycle begins before the existing one even ends (as occurred in 1996), rest assured that the boys and girls on the bus (and the Internet) will grow testy and bored months, if not years, before the election itself takes place. Add to this the truism that we now have a news cycle that turns over in hours, not days, and most, if not all, presidential contenders would be hard pressed to feed an insatiable media appetite.

But media cynicism to the contrary notwithstanding, the truth is that the stakes are enormous. Were we not a single-issue organization I could list a ton of areas in which it will make a huge difference whether Vice President Gore or Gov. Bush is the next occupant of the White House.

However, to drift off on to those other areas would be to miss a grim and more important reality: the future of America's future will be starkly different if Al Gore is the President rather than George W. Bush. If Gore leads this country, all the ugliness that we have witnessed these last nearly eight years will not only be institutionalized, it will also be given a new lease on death.

In a way, the dogged battles over the abortifacient RU486 were like bookends to the most pro-abortion administration in our history. The first skirmish began three days after Clinton/Gore took office.

The new Administration, handmaidens to the Abortion Lobby, lifted the ban on the importation of RU486 and instructed the FDA in no uncertain terms to figure out a way to get this new abortion technique marketed in the United States. Clinton's unrelenting crusade to multiply the number of abortions culminated in September, just six weeks before his second term ended.

The same agency that just a few months before reportedly wanted protections to ensure that RU486 be administered only by physicians with the right training and with access to the right medical technology and necessary medical backup folded like a two-dollar suitcase. Why? Because if necessary and proper safeguards were in place, the whole point of the pro- abortionists' campaign--to have anyone with an IQ above room temperature authorized to dispense this deadly artificial steroid--would be lost.

Naturally, the lies that are the hallmark of this morally and ethically corrupt Administration flowed fast and furious. The FDA decision to allow marketing was 100% pure "science," a by-the- book "medical decision" untainted by the coincidental fact that a new President would be chosen in just a few weeks. And as the King of Siam in the musical The King and I said so memorably, " etc., etc., etc."

Al Gore was a more-than-equal partner in these wars. You never know for sure what Bill Clinton believes about anything, but not Gore. He is a true believer in the salvific powers of abortion, especially as a tool in "curbing population growth" and sprucing up the environment.

When it comes to imposing abortion on lesser-developed nations, a President Gore would do so with such enthusiasm it would make the 19th-century European imperial powers look like pikers. He is a dangerous, dangerous man with a penchant for lying so deep- seated it seems to be encoded in his DNA.

But if George W. Bush becomes our next President, a very different, far more optimistic scenario looms over the horizon. And I do not mean that only because he is personally and politically pro-life--he is, as is his wife, Laura. Nor do I mean only that he will staff his Administration with compassionate conservatives who understand that the purpose of government is to protect innocent life, not take it, although he will. Nor do I mean only that Bush judicial appointments would not read their personal policy preferences into the Constitution, although they won't.

On top of all these considerable strengths, what makes George W. Bush such an appealing candidate is that he is by all accounts an extraordinarily decent human being, a man who is comfortable in his own skin, savvy about the purposes of government, and a consensus builder to the very marrow of his bones. Those are the kinds of skills that are needed to fashion a culture that welcomes life.

He understands that such a paradigm shift requires leadership - - a president (as he told the Catholic News Service) who will " talk about the culture of life, the need for a welcoming society." Bush's bully pulpit would be used to teach respect for unborn life and for the elderly.

"We've got people in our society who feel it's OK to take the life of the elderly, somehow that it's acceptable, and it's not," Bush said. America "must have a president who doesn't scold, doesn't lecture, but leads our nation to appreciate the value of life." In a very significant comment, Bush added, "But it's important to have a president who wants to talk about it."

I would like to end this last editorial before the elections with a true story I talked about in a speech given earlier this month in Illinois. I tell it because it gives me strength whenever I most need it and, I pray, will strengthen you as well.

There were just three weeks until the 1996 off-year elections and the NRLC staff, particularly the NRL PAC department, was working mammoth hours.

One night I came home very late. My four children were all asleep and my only thought was to collapse into bed. As I turned to set the alarm I glimpsed a simple drawing resting against the lamp on the table next to our bed.

Louisa, then seven, and her class had gone into Washington for a field trip. They were asked to draw pictures about their experience.

What I saw that chilly, late October night deeply moved me. I would be proud to have its words as an epitaph.

Louisa drew me in front of a computer terminal holding a baby in my arms. Another young child stood by my side, as if looking to me for protection. The caption read:

"Louisa. Oct. 8, 1996
Washington DC
My dad works in Washing.
My dad helps the baby
to be born not to die.
The White House is there."

Yup, that's what I do: helps the baby to be born, not to die. It is a privilege that I share with all of you.

Bless you for all you've done and will do (as someone once wrote) "to expose evil, exalt good, and illuminate truth."

dave andrusko [ dha1245@juno.com ]