A "candidate who is enthralled with upholding the Constitution, and interpreting it with due deference to the intentions of its authors" is not one who could possibly support (a la Giuliani) the abortion liberty. The only "pipedream" here is in believing that the two propositions are not irreconcilable.

And then there is the larger issue (unaddressed in this column) of casting a vote in support of someone who believes, quite literally, that the lives of unborn children have no more value than a mother's whim would grant them.

Perhaps I am cynical, but it seems to me that the pro-life movement might do well to move beyond where we have been the last 35 years. Why do we assume that our issue rises and falls with the whims of the Supreme Court? It's because of the notion that repealing Roe v. Wade or achieving a Human Life Amendment is the ultimate pro-life goal. Such a self-definition inevitably links the success of our movement to the nine black-robed persons.
But it isn't the job of the Supreme Court to end abortion. It isn't the job of the Congress to end abortion. It isn't the job of the President to end abortion. It is the job of the pro-life movement to end abortion!!!
All the pro-life movement needs is for the rest of them to stay out of the way, and let us do what we do best: pray, counsel, propagandize, organize, convert, and so on and so on.
To be sure, a friendly government is more likely to stay out of our way while an unfriendly one is more likely to put up obstacles (and threaten the tax-exemption of some of our organizations, and attempt to impoverish some of our already insolvent organizations).
But a hostile administration does not mean the end of the pro-life issue. And a President who is personally pro-choice can leave us alone just as well as can a President who is personally pro-life.

C.P.:

You say,

It is of course true that we Christians should do all we can to "change hearts and minds" and lead individuals to loving obedience to God.

And if this were to happen universally, then of course there'd be no abortions.

But in lieu of universal conversion and obedience, some people will choose to abort. The question is, if the only way to stop them is by force, do we use government force?

Yes. Yes we do. It all goes back to first principles:

1. The Church teaches that, when necessary as a last resort to protect innocents, force is called for and morally mandatory.

(Note: When I say "force" here, I am referring to government force. The government is that entity in society to whom we grant a monopoly on the use of force to achieve its ends; it is the one thing which distinguishes government from all other organizations in society. As for what "its ends" are...well, that is described below.)

2. The theories of governance which underlie Constitutional Democratic Republicanism all seem to require the outlawing of abortion:

The securing of the Right to Life for babies, then, is in fact part of the first purpose of government. The government which fails to do this, fails to fulfill one of its primary duties; indeed, the duty which was given primacy of place by the authors of the Declaration.

And of course a government are merely employees of the people, to whom the people have delegated some of their rightful authority. If an employee refuses to do one of his primary duties, the usual remedy is to fire that reprobate!

So, C.P., while I agree with you that pro-lifers should organize, persuade, cajole, exhort, convert, et cetera, I don't think it ends there.

Government is involved, unavoidably, because the issue is one of securing the rights of innocents, and the crime is one of using force against an innocent.

And in a free country, where the citizens select their government, pro-lifers are morally obligated to vote, protest, lobby, and otherwise promote the outlawing of abortion.

Okay, I need to say in response to all of this discussion about who to vote for based on their pro-life views that I agree with you all that the pro-life movement, when it comes to goermental politics, needs a makeover. The general public is still equating pro-life politicians with cold hearted business men with lots of money and no time to try to understand where a woman is coming from when she chooses to have an abortion. Even if our new 2008 election won us a pro-life president – and even if that president did manage to reverse Roe v Wade and end abortion … this would still leave us with (I dare say) most of the rest of the country motivated by rage and equipped with very good lawyers, civil rights activists, feminists and politicians who could very well find a better way to legalize abortion for the long term, and this time with the support of the rest of the country. I therefore think that it is important to recognize the other needs of our country – not just the abortion issue. We need to demonstrate that we care greatly for the welfare of our population. Therefore other societal issues should matter when choosing who to vote for.