These are the three issues that I saw in an anti-Forrester ad on WABC last night. Note that I'm pro-life but I think that Forrester can get milage out of being a "moderate" pro-choice candidate. He should also point out that even if Roe were overturned, it would simply turn abortion law back to the states, it wouldn't outlaw it. All of these issues were are the heart of the Dem attack and Torricelli's teary speach. Forrester must address them now on television and radio.
In doing so, he then must point out that it is the Democrats that are trying to squash the very real issues he was trying to raise, in particular, being weak on defense and support of the intelligence agencies. Lautenberg probably has a history of votes that will make him vulnerable here. And this will help move him beyond the idea that his candidacy was only "anti-Torricelli".
As for the Supreme Court issue, Forrester should point out that the same liberals who hold extreme pro-abortion issues to pass a Lautenberg litmus test are also the same sort of extreme (use that word) liberal judges who do things like declaring the Pledge of Allegence uncontitutional. In other words, the judicial activism that supports extreme readings of Roe goes far beyond simply abortion rights.