Examining the Past, Looking to the Future.

Let me begin by explaining why the November edition of National Right to Life News arrived so late. Since we publish Today's News & Views daily but NRL News once a month, it only made sense to me to wait until we could include complete coverage of the November 7 elections, an analysis of the November 8 oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and an explication of some of the fall-out from each. I think you'll agree this was the prudent thing to do, especially in light of my assurance that the December issue will be on time.

As I promised in Today's News & Views the morning after the elections, our take would be candid. We do not sugarcoat the losses in the House and Senate. But being candid is not the same as losing hope or failing to grasp the bigger long-term picture.(See also, stories on pages 1, 3, and 10)

When you read the stories on page one, you will come away with two critically important pieces of information. The first is a clear explanation of what transpired election night. You really do need to know the rest of the story.

The secondand one that is a great credit to youis that without your gritty determination, the outcome would have been far, far worse. A number of pro-lifers "should" have lost, given the dynamics of the election, but didn't purely because of your assistance in their hour of need. Your unfailing commitment made the difference.

The House is now in the hands of Democrats whose leadership is pro-abortion, as are most caucus members. The "genius" of Congressman Rahm Emanuel (who headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) was to recruit candidates who said little specifically but who made all the right-sounding gestures. This allowed them to appeal in culturally conservative areas of the South and Midwest. In many cases their real views remain oblique, when not a complete mystery.

What to expect? We've already read/heard endless assurances that the new pro-abortion leadership will pursue a legislative agenda that is "moderate," "middle of the road," aimed at "the center," or a dozen other similar iterations. All are interchangeable monikers the press has ascribed to many/most of the incoming members of the House whose electoral victories gave Democrats control by 30 or so votes.

We were also told that one new member in the Senate and a few (roughly six) in the House are "pro-life." We'll see whether this alleged moderation extends to the party's position on abortion and whether these newcomers, in fact, vote pro-life.