DALLAS (BP)--Pro-life voters are being pressured to sacrifice, or somehow downplay, their pro-life convictions in the current presidential race. The argument goes something like: There is little a president can do to limit abortion.

Don't buy it. And don't use it as an excuse to dismiss abortion in favor of issues you consider more important in choosing a president. Abortion may not be your top issue, or it may be equal with a couple of others. But in this wide-open nominating contest, we must be clear. The role of a president in protecting the sanctity of human life is large and growing.

Below are some of the ways a president can use his or her constitutional and moral authority actively to promote a culture of life.

The presidency provides a bully pulpit to talk about the sanctity of human life. Every year President Bush speaks via phone through a loudspeaker to the annual March for Life, bringing encouragement to pro-lifers to continue the fight. Presidential proclamations and speeches can promote a culture of life. Presidents have many opportunities verbally to remind citizens that it is the proper role of government to protect the lives of innocent unborn children.

The fight against abortion begins by changing public opinion about it. That doesn't happen when a president gives a muddled statement by saying, "I personally disdain abortion. But I will protect a woman's right to choose it." A pro-life president can and should acknowledge that the tiniest human being, a human embryo, is entitled to protection under the U.S. Constitution. President Bush has done a good job of this. But a president could go further. Many pro-lifers believe the best way to end abortion would be to see that the constitution specifically addresses abortion beyond what it already says about the protection of life. A president could advance that cause by endorsing and promoting a human life amendment to the Constitution

A pro-life president can make pro-life appointments. One might argue that every cabinet secretary's department touches the sanctity of life in some way. But some are particularly influential:

The attorney general and the Department of Justice have considerable sway over how laws advancing abortion or limiting it are enforced. And it's not just abortion. Attorney General John Ashcroft took a principled pro-life position (overruled by the Supreme Court) when he issued a directive saying that the Controlled Substances Act does not allow for drugs to be used in physician assisted suicide.

The secretary of health and human services oversees all kinds of programs that could either encourage or discourage the frequency and availability of abortion.

And, perhaps most of all, the federal and Supreme Court judges a president nominates have a lasting impact on abortion policy and other pro-life issues in America, hopefully even overturning Roe v. Wade and its companion decision, Doe v. Bolton.

A pro-life president can orchestrate a pro-life foreign policy. The president can instruct the U.S. delegation to the United Nations not to force pro-abortion polices on foreign countries, but instead to encourage and support pro-life activities. And the president can prevent foreign aid from being used to support abortion. President Reagan established the Mexico City Policy which bans the flow of aid to agencies that provide or promote abortion. With the exception of Bill Clinton, all subsequent pro-life presidents have adhered to this policy.

The president can issue executive orders that protect life. Early in his first term, President Bush issued an executive order that prohibited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond that which could be done on the lines that had already been developed. A pro-life president could continue this policy or even issue a new executive order banning all research involving the killing of human embryos. This is a real possibility because the push for life-destroying research on human embryos is losing some of its ammunition. The scientific community is refocusing upon new, morally-acceptable alternative research involving the injection of genes into normal cells, enticing them to act like embryonic cells.

The president can sign pro-life legislation passed by Congress. The possibilities are endless. There's a bill in the pipeline mandating that women considering abortion be told that an unborn child, 20 or more weeks past fertilization, feels pain. Lawmakers are looking at legislation banning sex-selection abortions and a bill declaring the unborn child a person. We have yet to pass a ban on human cloning. These bills will die on the desk of a pro-choice president.

The president can veto pro-abortion legislation. With the current composition of Congress, there will be many opportunities to do that. There is a movement in Congress to pass a law that really goes for all the marbles: the Freedom of Choice Act. This bill would nullify every piece of pro-life legislation on the books. Also, Congress continues to attempt to provide federal funding for stem cell research that destroys embryos. President Bush has stood firm against such funding.

So much has changed since the Roe ruling in 1973. Although Roe claimed that we do not know when life begins, technology now shows otherwise. The public is changing its mind on abortion. Polls show that America tilts pro-life. Opposition to abortion is a political winner.

This is the month we look back to these horrible decisions made 35 years ago. It's a good time to affirm 35 years of efforts by pro-life citizens and elected officials. What better way to do that than to keep the sanctity of life important as we select a president.

Comment on this Story | Read Comments