[Askel5]

I can only go by the facts, Hugh. I can't surmise as to what he would have done had he not been knocked off his horse and had a personal conversion experience that led him into politics despite his love for baseball.

Deep tissue surmising on a public figure's personal life is not my forte.

As you know, I basically revolve whatever their words and actions suggest is their measure of respect for Human Life. I'm one of those who actually believes "all men are created equal" and that ALL RIGHTS flow from the one essential right that is the Right to Life.

[Hugh Akston]

Well, Reagan had his blights when it came to the pro-life movement, by the names of O'Connor and Kennedy.

To me the most important things for a President to do regarding the pro-life cause are 1) use the bully pulpit to influence the public debate, 2) nominate good justices (particularly to the Supreme Court) and 3) limit funding of UN population control groups.

On the first, Bush has done well (even if he made a compromise that he probably did not need to regarding already-dead babies' stem cells), emphasizing that the pro-life position is mainstream and important. Reagan did better, though. On the second, as I mentioned above, Reagan's record is not as good as his use of the bully pulpit. It is too soon to tell overall how Dubya will do in that regard, but his first batch of federal judges were good on aggregate. And on the third, Bush has definitely been a step in the right direction.