Pro-life voters have high expectations, and well they should. They have been the staunchest supporters of George W. Bush.

Since the early days of his first Presidential campaign, Bush has included the pro-life community at the heart of his political coalition. They have responded to his message of compassionate conservatism, seeing that message as fundamentally pro-life, though not as comprehensive as they sometimes wished.

Bush's 2000 television speech on stem cells basically confirmed pro-life confidence in the President's commitment to a culture of life. Yet, there was some disappointment that the President allowed federally funded research on existing stem cell lines.

Whatever disappointment some pro-lifers felt as a result of the stem cell decision, or any subsequent one, they always comforted themselves with the fact that Bush would be nominating the next Justice to the Supreme Court.

Indeed, it is this hope that drove the pro-life engine through both elections and their continued support for the Bush legislative agenda.

In the days approaching the nomination, there will be a multitude of arguments made about why the nominee should not be an "extremist," i.e., a pro-life jurist.

Senator Edward Kennedy has already made the most contentious remark of all: "If the President abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people, then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee, and we intend to do so."

When a supposedly Catholic Senator calls the nomination of a pro-life justice an "abuse of power" we are surely descending into a political maelstrom where anything can and will be said.

None of these absurd comments should give the White House even a moment of hesitation. The people of faith who helped elect the President twice will dismiss the hullabaloo that will erupt in the Senate and the media.

Let there be a hullabaloo.

And, as for media, they already know how the media will report this event. They already can predict the labels that will be slapped on the nominees.

After all, pro-lifers have been called names all their lives.

Some political operatives will argue that a pro-life nominee will lead to the defection of key Republican votes, and even the "nuclear option" may fail.

Pro-lifers will say, "So what!" They expect the President to nominate on the basis of his principles and, as the saying goes, "let the chips fall where they may."

Without the addition of a conservative justice we can expect future cases before the Court, such as Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood (O4-1144), to continue undermining the culture. Planned Parenthood is currently suing the Attorney General of New Hampshire to overturn a state law requiring parents of minors (under age 18) to be notified at least 48 hours before an abortion can be performed. Lower courts declared the law unconstitutional because it did not make an exception for medical emergencies.

If the new configuration of the Supreme Court does not uphold laws such as parental notification and partial birth abortion, pro-lifers will point their fingers at the White House.

The White House, without doubt, understands all of this. They know the pro-life community inside and out. They also know that a slip-up on this nomination will undo years of Bush coalition building for the Republican Party.

Since the 1996 Presidential election, for example, 15 % of the overall Catholic vote has moved toward Bush, from 37% in 1996 to 57% in 2004. That translates to approximately 4,350,000 votes nationally (many of them in key swing states).

These Catholic votes combined with an Evangelical vote of 78% gives Bush's Republican coalition a decisive edge in national elections.

Disappointing the pro-life voter would also directly impact the 2006 elections, especially the Pennsylvania Senatorial race between Rick Santorum and Bob Casey, Jr. Santorum's religious grassroots, already dispirited by his support for Arlen Specter, would be completely deflated.

There isn't a leader in pro-life politics, Catholic and Evangelical, who hasn't spoken out on the importance of this nomination. From Fr. Frank Pavone (Priests for Life) and Judie Brown (American Life League) to Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and Jay Sekulow (American Center for Law and Justice) and there is absolute unanimity - this is no time for compromise.

My advice is to prepare for a long and bitter fight over the next nominee. This nominee will be subjected to unprecedented media scrutiny and a relentless and well-funded attack from the left. Whoever it is will need our prayers.

The Senate Minority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, already signaled what the atmosphere will be like when the nominee comes before the Senate. Judge Henry Saad is the President's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, the first Arab-American to be nominated to such a post.

During one of the filibuster debates, Reid said about Saad, "He's one of those nominees. All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree there is a problem there."

Senator Reid knows that FBI background reports are confidential, and to reveal anything about them is improper and unethical. Yet, neither did he flinch in making his remarks nor did he apologize for them later.

Reid's threatening behavior is a pale foretaste of what is in store for Bush's Supreme Court nominee.

*****
On the pro-life cultural front, I suggest you take a look at the music video by rapper Nick Cannon. I am not a fan of rap, but I found his testimony extremely moving and worth passing along. Go to his web site and click the "hi res" version of his video in the middle of the webpage. You need to have RealPlayer to view it. You can download a free version from their site.

For the latest Catholic news, the Window recommends the Catholic News Agency. Click here to visit their site.

Please add us to your address book so that The Window will always arrive in your in-box not your bulk or junk e-mail folder.