BEING SMART ABOUT THE ELECTION

The pro-abortion majority on the U.S. Supreme Court detests the relentless activism of the right-to-life movement. In its 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey, the plurality opinion not only reaffirmed the "essential holding of Roe v. Wade," but also rebuked pro-lifers. The opinion contains this arrogant statement:

"Where in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe , its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court's interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution."

In other words, we were being told to shut up and go away.

With the gracious permission of the Court, we pro-lifers would like to note that the Court resolved nothing in Roe v. Wade. In fact, Roe v. Wade was and continues to be the very source of what the Court calls a "divisive controversy." The Court created the constitutional crisis in the first place, and that crisis will only go away when the Court's extra-constitutional ruling is reversed.

As to the Court's claim of "a common mandate in the Constitution" for a right to abortion on demand, it is nothing more than a fraudulent misapplication of the Fourteenth Amendment. What does exist in the Constitution is the pro-lifers' undisputed First Amendment right to press publicly and persistently for the legal recognition of the right to life-and act accordingly at election time.

The point is to advance the right-to-life cause and weaken the "culture of death" to the point where it is replaced by a culture that protects and respects the right to life. So how should pro-lifers act at election time?

* By now, it is clear that this advance will not come from a single burst of intense activity; rather it will come through many smaller steps, each carefully thought out. In other words, pro-lifers must not be impetuous but be smart, especially about voting. The point is not to make a self-satisfied "statement" but to make a difference in advancing the right to life.

* First of all, that means electing pro-life candidates.

* Second, defeating 100%-pro-abortion politicians or replacing them with candidates who oppose most abortions weakens the pro-abortion side and advances the right-to-life cause. We need allies along the way because we don't have an overwhelming majority--yet. And politicians who start out being with us part of the time are more likely to join us "all the way" once they have been educated and have begun to understand the depth and power of the right-to-life movement. (At the recent convention of West Virginians for Life, the group's chief lobbyist observed that among West Virginia's politicians it has become "cool" to be pro-life. This is the fruit of nearly 30 years of steady work.)

* While our goal is to protect all innocent life from conception to natural death, our progress toward that goal must not be derailed by an irrational insistence that candidates must be perfect in every aspect before we vote for them. There are very few "absolutely perfect pro-life" candidates--just as there are very few perfect pro-life voters. By insisting on the "perfect" over the "good" we shrink the number of acceptable pro-life candidates. The likely result of such a short-sighted strategy would be the political irrelevance of the right-to-life movement.

* The law teaches. But without participation in the political process, pro-lifers cannot influence the making of law. (In making law, too, the quest for unattainable perfection can sabotage the achievement of the good that will move us toward the final goal.) Hence, pro-lifers must be successful in elections.

* Pro-lifers must educate their fellow voters. According to a Los Angeles Times poll (June 8-13, 2000), voters are poorly informed: Only 31% identified pro-abortion candidate Al Gore as "in favor of abortion rights"; 6% falsely thought he was "against abortion except in the case of rape, incest and the mother's health" (a "no-exceptions" category was not provided by the poll); and 63% didn't know. Similarly, only 28% identified pro-life candidate George W. Bush as being opposed to abortion; 7% wrongly thought he favored abortion rights; and 65% didn't know.

* Get pro-life voters to the polls. (The pro-abortionists are working like crazy to get their supporters to the polls.) A Los Angeles Times exit poll for the 2000 election revealed that 14% of voters identified abortion as the first or second most important issue influencing their vote. That means that out of over 105.4 million votes cast, about 14.8 million were influenced by the candidates' stance on abortion. Of these votes, about 8.6 million votes went for Bush and 6.1 million went for Gore--a pro-life increment of 2.5 million votes! This made a big difference in an election where Al Gore led the popular vote by 543,895 votes (because of huge margins in California and New York), while George W. Bush won the all-important electoral college 271-266 by winning Florida by 537 votes. He also won Gore's home state, Tennessee, by 80,229 votes; Bill Clinton's home state, Arkansas, by 50,172 votes; and mostly-Democrat West Virginia (where I live) by 40,978 votes; and so on.

Did the pro-life increment of 2.5 million votes make a difference? Just think what a mess we would be in if these pro-lifers had stayed at home on election day or voted for unelectable third-party candidates for the sake of "principle"--and made Al Gore president. Given that the pro-abortion Democratic leadership currently controls the Senate, just think how many pro-abortion judges a President Gore would already have appointed by now.

Just think what a difference it would make if pro-life President George W. Bush could work with a Senate controlled by pro-life senators.

Think, work, and sacrifice time and money. The unborn children count on you.