A CRITICAL YEAR FOR PRO-LIFERS.

The dramatic events in one major party's primary election fight may obscure the incredible dangers the pro-life cause faces in this election year. Behind the novelties of gender and skin color of the two remaining candidates in the Democratic primary battle there is still the same "old" fact: they and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party are firmly and enthusiastically wedded to the pro-abortion ideology. They thirst for the power to impose their "progressive" anti-life vision on this country. A sympathetic main stream press politely hides this fact. Instead there is a lot of empty rhetoric about "hope" and "change" and little about the radical policies that would emerge after the hoped-for election victory.

WHAT COULD HAPPEN

Every pro-lifer should take a clear-headed look at what we are facing if the pro-abortion forces are victorious in the next election.

All nominees for the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary would be picked for their determined support of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Any reversal and correction of this extra-constitutional "law making from the bench" would be impossible for decades to come, given the long life of judicial tenures. For the past 35 years we have been frustrated by the arrogance and intransigence of the Court. Now, add another 35 years.

Given the enormous amounts of money raised by the pro-abortion forces for this election cycle, pro-lifers may face a Congress that is more pro-abortion than ever. Pro-abortionists still regret their failure to enact the pernicious "Freedom of Choice Act" when Bill Clinton first became president.

It is true that the Supreme Court "constitutionalized" the right to abortion, overriding any legislative action. However, the abortion "right" was extra-constitutionally imposed by nine unelected men in Roe v. Wade. The pro-abortionists want to legitimize this action and add a stamp of approval "by the people" to Roe by having our congressional representatives enact the "Freedom of Choice Act." That way, pro-lifers would be robbed of the argument that Roe was only imposed by legislating from the bench.

The pro-abortionists see another, equally great "benefit" in the "Freedom of Choice Act": the law would make sure that there could be no more pesky pro-life legislation about preventing abortions on minors without involving the parents, abortion clinic regulations, informed consent for women considering an abortion, and so on. On the legislative front, the pro-life movement would be dead in the water.