AN HISTORIC CROSSROADS             			by David Andrusko                      				legend: _italics_ *boldface*    "With the Clintons, the story always is subject to further revision.      The misstatements are always incremental. The 'misunderstandings' are      _always_ innocent -- casual, irregular, promiscuous. Trust is      squandered in dribs and drabs."                               - Joe Klein, May 9, 1994, _Newsweek_    "What happened is the president's [health proposal] scared people,      and the effect of being scared is to make people much more cautious      about what is to be enacted."                               - Robert Blendon, quoted in the                                 June 16,1994, _Wall Street Journal_    "By a strange paradox, the main legacy of the Clintons to      late-twentieth-century America may be a revived interest in questions      of character."                               - From _Returning to Virtue_ by Robert RoyalMake no mistake about it, we are at an absolutely crucial juncture.  The fateof health care "reform" is clearly up for grabs. What you and I do over thenext few weeks could well determine whether our moral starting points areradically revised. Will the abortion cancer metastasize, spreading everywhere?Will the lives of massive numbers of vulnerable people be placed at riskthrough rationing of lifesaving care? Will the Clintons succeed in retouchingabortion's ugly face by integrating it into the core of medical servicedelivery? Not if we go all-out -- NOW! We *must* take advantage of the growingmisgivings that now are threatening the Clinton Health Care Rationing Planboth by participating in the nationwide brochure distribution project (seeback cover) and by writing our elected officials (see "Action Alert," page 21).There is an intriguing irony at work here. Last year, we were given virtuallyno chance of derailing the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA).  But in the wake ofa herculean grassroots oppositional effort, FOCA proponents decided (aftercounting noses) that discretion was the better part of valor; it was notbrought up for a vote. By contrast, in this year's tenacious combat over theClinton Plan, many (including some pro-lifers) casually opined that there wasno way the Clintons would endanger their health "reform" program by trying tocram unparalleled federal promotion of abortion down the throats ofcongressmen, let alone the general public. Even now, we hear some of thispoppycock, a not very well thought out response to the Clintons' whollyinsincere blatherings about possibly "compromising." Many otherwisehard-headed people labor under the illusion that abortion is of secondaryimportance to the most ideologically militant First Couple ever to occupy theWhite House. The naivete is astonishing. And as for rationing, wealternatively hear (a) naw, it ain't so, and (b) yup, only way to controlmedical costs.To be sure, we must *not* make the mistake of concluding that the mother ofall anti-life proposals (or related progeny) is in mortal danger. If it/theyare repelled, it will *only* be because pro-lifers and other ordinaryAmericans rain a prodigious outpouring of letters, mailgrams, literaturedrops, and the like on Congress. The reason we have a chance at rebuffing theClintons stems from the White House's highly questionable tactics andstrategy, the fact that the true reach of what is, after all, a breathtakingexpansion of federal power is beginning to sink in, and because Mr. and Mrs.Average Citizen are coming to the conclusion that the pay-off would be moretaxes, a serious erosion in the quality of medical care, and rationing. (Seestory, page 1.) To repeat, now is the hour. The unborn and the medicallyvulnerable need your help!What makes the impending showdown historic is that if Bill and Hillary Clintonprevail, Americans will suffer through what only the most militantpro-abortionists could feel sanguine about: a virtual explosion in the numberof abortions. Believe me, this is no exaggeration. Everyday in everyway thecommitment that steers the otherwise rudderless Clinton Administration is tomake abortion a way of death _everywhere_ in the world.This confrontation comes just as a report was published by the proabortionAlan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), showing a 5% drop in abortions between 1990and 1992. We must both not make too much of this nor minimize itssignificance. No one can get too happy when over 1.5 million babies still diedin 1992. Yet, surely it's a cause for joyous celebration that 80,000 fewerbabies were butchered two years ago than were killed four years ago. (See DickGlasow's story on page 11.)The study's principal author, Stanley K. Henshaw, attributes the decline (tothe lowest point since 1979!) to the "changing age structure among women ofreproductive age" -- as the huge cohort of baby boomer women age, they areless likely to have abortions. He also cites changing attitudes towardchildbirth outside of marriage, and a diminution in the availability ofabortion services, in part due, he alleges, to "hassles and harassment." ButHenshaw also obliquely references a possible change in "attitude towardabortion." Asked specifically by the _Baltimore Sun_, "Does that meananti-abortion groups' campaigns to change public attitudes have worked?" hereplied, "It's hard to say, but it's a possibility that it's succeeded to someextent."However, when interviewed by _USA Today_, abortionists and abortion"providers" readily unpacked their laments. They conceded our ad campaigns aredissuading women. Counselors see "more anguish around decision-making" onabortion, complained the National Abortion Federation's Sylvia Stengle. Ifmeasures such as parental notification laws, "women's right to know" laws, and24-to 48-hour waiting periods are convincing some women to change their minds,no wonder proabortionists fight these widely supported measures like thedevil.It doesn't require a very subtle mind to understand, then, why making abortionpart and parcel of the medical system, paid for by eueryone's tax dollars, isvital to the anti-life set: it would go a long way toward destigmatizing theabortion trade. Henshaw himself pointed out in the closing paragraphs of hisarticle in the May/June _Family Planning Perspectives_ that fewer and fewerhospitals are performing abortions, there is a declining number ofabortionists, and baby killing is increasingly concentrated in "specializedabortion clinics." Thus, he warns, "abortion services are becoming even moreisolated from the mainstream of medical care, leaving physicians who providedthese services vulnerable to stigmatization within the medical community."But, to the pro-abortion mind, the hope is, if *everybody* pays for abortions;if *every* insurance policy includes abortion in its coverage; if abortioncomes to be seen as no different than any other "pregnancy-related service,"well, won't people eventually conclude, "What's the big deal about killingbabies?"The Clintons' obsession with shepherding RU 486 through the medical, ethical,and safety obstacles to eventual marketing make more sense when we grasp thatBill and Hillary hunger and thirst after an America where every ob-gyn is (inthe words of the _St. Louis Post Dispatch_) "a potential abortion provider."If, as Henshaw suggests, fewer abortion "providers" equals fewer abortions,what, pray tell, should we expect if we increase the pool of butchers manytimes over? No wonder Clinton sees the upcoming UN Conference on Populationand Development as one gigantic proselytizing opportunity for abortionists inthe developing world, according to Jeanne Head, RN, NRLC board member from NewYork and a delegate to the United Nations from the International Right to LifeFederation. She reminds us we should hardly be surprised that the U.S.delegation to the preparatory conference was the driving force in trying toturn the Cairo conference into one extended paean to "safe, legal" abortions.With the Clintons' track record, we could know in advance they'd insist that akey component of the document to be voted on in September is to provideteenagers around the world with abortion services behind their parents' back.Other pro-abortion Presidents have been largely content to whittle away at thepro-life opposition. Clinton goes after the jugular. If he could, he wouldannihilate the primary roadblock -- us -- to his crusade to reshape ourcollective assumptions about the taking of unborn human life. Were he toengineer such a coup, Clinton would have won a battle of colossal proportion.Under the cloak of the idiotic mantra of "safe, legal and rare" abortion, hehopes to muddy our moral vision, to eviscerate the very capacity todistinguish good from evil.Which is why, we might add parenthetically, you see what might be called theWillie Hortonization of conservative Christians who are entering the politicalprocess in record numbers. What happens if decent, law-abiding pro-lifecultural conservatives secure their rightful place at the political table? Forone thing, those within both major political parties who wish abortion would"go away" will encounter determined new opposition. For another thing, thesenewly energized party activists will insist that the Clinton Administration'sout-of-the-mainstream agenda be fully critiqued. No wonder they must besmeared at every occasion by Clinton's many surrogates (i.e., reporters/columnists), as well as party hacks such as Democratic National CommitteeChairman David Wilhelm. Wilhelm, in particular, is desperate to move thediscussion away from what even his field directors are admitting: manyDemocrats will not only not run with Bill Clinton this year, they will runaway from the President. So it is that conservative Christians must bedemonized.Finally, looking ahead, in the next issue of *NRL News* we will list theproducts manufactured by the companies associated with RU 486. We willencourage you to boycott them. RU 486 is extraordinarily dangerous to womenand to their unborn children. It has no business here. While advocates see itas the key to unlock the door which has kept full acceptance of abortion atbay, if we look at the core idea that underlies its introduction, we quicklysee that it is a classic example of a technological fix offered supposedly asa way out of a moral and ethical bind. In truth, of course, it is the diseasefor which it is advertised as the cure. Technology as savior is emblematic ofthe flight from responsibility which undergirds the anti-life ethos --regression masquerading as "progress." Morally, we have moved backwards fromadulthood to adolescence, substituting a pastiche of cliches for generosity ofspirit. Thus, a major part of the challenge we face is to retrieve thosehumane and dignified values which provided safe harbor for the powerless amongus. Others, less resolute, would buckle under the sheer weight of the tasksahead, but not you.Pro-lifers passionately defy our culture's directive to segment the humanfamily into life worthy to be lived and life which has no claims on ourconscience. Your moral intuitions are keen, your deep commitment to justice,mercy, and compassion praiseworthy. It is precisely because of your fidelityto these eternal virtues that the babies could not possibly have morecompetent defenders, more trustworthy champions.                                                   dha[ This editorial first appeared in the in the June 21, 1994 issue of _National  Right to Life News_.  Copied with permission.  _National Right to Life News_  is the official publication of the National Right to Life Committee, Inc.  Subscription information, including bulk rates for schools and libraries may  be obtained by contacting NRL News at:		National Right to Life News        Address: Suite 500,		419 - 7th Street, N.W., 		Washington, D.C. 20004	 Phone: (202)626-8800 ]