the Ms analysis makes no sense. Therefore, basing a now moot argument for keeping Lott on it is similarly senseless.
Ms assumed that Lott would have been replaced by the equally pro life Nickles. So there would have been no gain to them on the partial birth question.
It might be argued now that Frist is more pro choice and, therefore, less likely to ban paritial birth abortions.
However, in 1999, Frist voted IN FAVOR of a partial birth abortion ban.
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL1199/voteroe.html
Accordingly, there is no real evidence that instaling Frist as SML will hurt the chances of a ban on partial birth abortions.
The only real gain to the Dems, the libs, the feminazis, etc., on Lott was to have Lott try to hang on as long as possible until he was so damaged that he had no choice by to resign from the Senate completely. By resigning the leadership, but not the Senate, Lott has effectively neutralized this plan.
we will see.