WASHINGTON — After approving two pro-life Supreme Court judges and passing nearly half a dozen laws partially protecting the rights of the unborn, pro-life Congressmen stand to lose significant clout in November.

Not only are pro-life ranks likely to thin in both houses, but a majority party switch in one or both houses could throw dozens of pro-lifers out of congressional leadership and the chairs of key committees in the House and Senate. The result could be the smothering of all new pro-life legislation, the repeal of some provisions already in law, and consideration of several pieces of pro-abortion legislation.

A district-by-district and state-by-state analysis by the Register of all 435 House races suggests that in the House of Representatives, roughly 16 seats held by mostly or solidly pro-life members could be taken over by candidates who support legalized abortion. Only six seats currently held by pro-abortion legislators have a serious chance of switching to the pro-life side.

For this year’s 34 Senate races, the picture is less clear, although pro-lifers are still expected to lose seats. Five pro-life incumbents, including Rick Santorum, R-Pa., Jim Talent, R-Mo., and Conrad Burns, R-Mont., are in serious danger of losing in November. Santorum’s Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey, is nominally pro-life, but he also supported a Democratic filibuster of several pro-life judges that was clearly related to the abortion debate.

But pro-lifers also have a greater upside potential in the Senate, with competitive races in Maryland, Michigan and Minnesota representing possible pro-life victories.

The problems for pro-lifers in Congress this year are mostly unrelated to the life issue and attach more to the Republican Party’s woes, because the overwhelming majority of pro-life politicians in Congress are Republicans. Pro-lifers could become collateral damage of the unpopular war in Iraq, high gas prices and President Bush’s unpopularity.

In addition, a corruption scandal involving Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff has endangered many pro-life seats as collateral damage. Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, is the target of a federal investigation involving Abramoff, and related charges forced pro-life Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to announce his retirement from Congress on June 9.

Other pro-life congressmen have had ethical problems that are endangering their re-election. Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Pa., barely won his May 16 primary after he was forced to pay a huge legal settlement to a woman with whom he had an affair. Another pro-lifer, Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., pleaded guilty this year to accepting bribes. His vacant seat is already guaranteed to go to one of two pro-abortion candidates in a June 6 special election.

Other problems for pro-lifers in Congress are sky-rocketing gas prices and the White House’s push for an immigration reform bill during the election year. The latter has sufficiently upset the Republican base that many observers believe it could cause GOP voters to stay home — one by-product being a loss of pro-life members.

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., a pro-life freshman congressman whose Philadelphia suburban district leans both Democratic and pro-abortion, told the Register that pro-life members have nothing to fear in sticking to their principles, so long as they are diligent about spending time in their districts and serving their constituents.

“You’ve got to be a hard worker, and to be there in the district with the constituents so that they know you care, and not forget that the community comes first,” said Fitzpatrick. “You have to recognize that they’re not going to agree with your views 100% of the time, but what your constituents really want is honesty.”

Fitzpatrick is facing a well-funded challenge from a strongly pro-abortion Catholic Iraq War veteran named Patrick Murphy.

In even greater trouble than the pro-life caucus is the Republican caucus, which has held the House majority since 1995 and currently enjoys a 55-seat majority in the Senate. At least 25 Republican House seats could flip to Democratic. With one House seat vacant, Republicans currently hold 231 of the 435 seats there, meaning that Democrats can take control by picking up a net 15 seats.

Under GOP control, the Congress has banned partial-birth abortion, the use of military facilities for abortions, and the patenting of human embryos. Congress has also upheld the administration’s policy of withholding all funding from abortion programs abroad and passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which for the first time defines an unborn baby as a human being. Although the Senate has yet to act, the Republican House passed a bill in this Congress outlawing the transportation of minors across state lines for abortions without their parents’ consent.

The Republican Party is hardly synonymous with the pro-life issue — as many as 15% of its members have reliably pro-abortion voting records, with about as many Democrats voting pro-life. But GOP control of Congress has ensured that pro-lifers hold the positions of speaker of the House and majority leader, as well as most committee chairs, so that pro-lifers have determined which bills come to the floor and which do not. In that sense, said Doug Johnson, legislative director for National Right-to-Life, the political success of the pro-life movement will be determined by whether Republicans keep control.

“There are certainly some Democratic members of Congress who have good pro-life records,” Johnson told the Register. “But the effect of the Democratic Party getting control of either house of Congress would be catastrophic for the pro-life movement.”

Amaya Smith, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, objected to Johnson’s characterization of what Democratic control would mean for pro-lifers.

“That’s just a scare tactic on the part of a lot of people, especially on the right wing,” said Smith. “I think we’ve seen a lot of common-sense approaches from Democrats on these issues to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.”

Smith referred to Democratic efforts to fund contraceptive programs, and cited a statement signed by 55 Catholic Democratic House members in February. The document asserted their right to disagree with Catholic teaching.

But Democratic control would almost certainly alter the type of abortion legislation considered by the House. Already in the pipeline is a bill by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., to impose federal regulations on crisis pregnancy centers’ ability to market themselves, possibly making it difficult for them to help as many women. Among the other pro-abortion pieces of legislation that could arise are provisions allowing the use of U.S. military facilities for abortions and legislation requiring all health providers that receive Medicaid or Medicare funding — including Catholic hospitals — to distribute abortifacients. Such a bill is already law in Massachusetts.

“We’d have to be fighting bad legislation instead of being able to enact good legislation,” said Johnson.

David Freddoso writes from

Washington, D.C.