Tuesday's consequences for pro-life

I don't suppose it's a secret that we here tend to lean a little to the conservative side of the American political spectrum, so we weren't exactly jumping for joy over Tuesday's election results.  In particular, there is one issue very near to our hearts - the pro-life cause.  In terms of sheer magnitude, the single greatest social justice issue of our time.  A lot of pro-life politicians were voted out of office for one reason or another and replaced with people either less pro-life or outright pro-abortion.

So how big a setback was it?  To hear "veteran journalist Russell Shaw," whom Zenit interviewed, it was a very significant setback.

However, could Tuesday's election hold the promise of improvement in the longer term?  In order to defeat Republicans, Democrats had to run candidates in many races who break with the party line in significant ways, even -gasp- on abortion.  Could this be the crack in the ice of abortion-crats' stranglehold on the upper levels of power in the Democrat ranks?  This is really what we want - not for the Democrats to turn into Republicans in blue, but for there to be bipartisan efforts on the pro-life front.  Pro-life being perceived as being identified with Republican, or orthodox Catholic with Republican, is not what we need and never what we wanted - whatever the parties, it never turns out well when that sort of dynamic appears.

What do you think?  Am I being too optimistic about this, or could it happen?

Addendum - Assuming this is the same person, Russell Shaw was the USCCB's spokesman for 15 years.

Comments

[Al T]

I would put forth that since we have the power of prayer on our side that you aren't being too optimistic. Besides in the type of coalition building that both Dems and Repubs have to go through it is more advantageous to have as few hard line positions as possible.