Call it the pro-lifers' dilemma. It comes down to this: conscientious opponents of abortion now face the distinct possibility of having no acceptable choice in the presidential election of 2008. After all, even staying home on election day could be seen as a copout.
The prolife community has been fretting over this problem for months, but there's no consensus on what to do about it. Heading into the primary season, the only thing that's clear is that the situation is distressing and the dilemma all too real.
Start with the bedrock fact that all of the Democratic contenders are determined supporters of legalized abortion. Despite sweet talk about treating prolifers with respect and reducing the number of abortions, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards see the right to abortion as sacrosanct. Clinton has pledged that one of her first acts as president would be to reverse the prolife policies of George W. Bush.
There are professed pro-life candidates on the Republican side of course — Thompson, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and others — but Rudolph Giuliani, an unblushing pro-choicer, has been ahead in the polls and out in front of the pack for months. Giuliani says abortion is "wrong," but he supports the "constitutional right" to have one.
A run at the White House by a pro-life independent candidate perhaps? The testimony of history is that an independent candidate would have as much chance of winning as the proverbial snowball in a warm place. Like it or not, his or her main contribution would be to siphon off GOP votes.
All this is, to put it mildly, no laughing matter. As opponents and supporters of abortion all understand very well, the abortion-related issue really at stake in the 2008 presidential race is the power to nominate new justices to the Supreme Court.
As matters now stand, on abortion and much else, the high court is divided 4-4-1-four liberals, four conservatives, plus Anthony Kennedy, a classic swing voter but a supporter of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion back in 1973.
There will be no voluntary departures from the Supreme Court before a new president is chosen. The justices are at least as interested as anybody else in how that turns out. But what happens after the election is another story.
Departures from the court on the conservative side in the next few years are obviously possible but probably unlikely. The situation is, however, very different with the liberals.
Justice John Paul Stevens is 87. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a cancer survivor and is said to be in frail health. Justice David Souter is reported not to like his job. All vote pro-choice. The next president could have a shot at replacing one, two, or even all three.
As president, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and the rest of the Democrats could be counted on to nominate successors who also support Roe v. Wade. Giuliani says he would choose strict-constructionist jurists, without caring much where they came down on Roe. To varying degrees, the other Republicans would presumably be more sensitive to prolife concerns in making this particular choice.
In the year leading up to the election much can-and undoubtedly will-change. Even so, pro-lifers are understandably apprehensive that by next November they may have no really acceptable option before them.
So, what does a conscientious prolife voter do then? Try your best to identify the lesser of two evils, I guess, and-holding your nose, averting your eyes, and saying a little prayer-cast your ballot accordingly.
