WASHINGTON — Pro-lifers are bracing for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to be chaired next year by a pro-abortion senator with a history of opposing pro-life judicial nominees.

That scenario will come to pass if Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., wins reelection and Republicans hold on to their majority in the Senate.

Specter played a crucial role in killing the nomination of constitutionalist Robert Bork to the Supreme Court during the Reagan administration, thus helping to keep the legacy of Roe v. Wade.

Things could have been different. Specter, who has threatened to vote against two pro-life Catholic judicial nominees during this presidential administration, narrowly won a primary victory April 27 over the pro-life challenger, Rep. Pat Toomey. R-Pa.

Pro-lifers are wondering how Catholic pro-life U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. — and President Bush — could go to bat for Specter, possibly giving Santorum's fellow Pennsylvania Republican the edge.

The Register asked Santorum about that. Why did he campaign vigorously for Specter? Couldn't he have simply endorsed him, if party loyalty demanded that?

Santorum said he made a prudential judgment. He argued that picking up more pro-life Republicans in states with no incumbents running rather than trying to pick up another pro-life Republican in Pennsylvania without the advantage of incumbency was a better use of the GOP's efforts and funds.

“I judged based on all the facts and circumstances what would benefit the causes I believe in the most,” Santorum said.

“My feeling was very strongly that, given all the contested races and open seats we were facing in the U.S. Senate,” said Santorum, “having an open seat in Pennsylvania to contend with — in a very expensive state with a Democratic governor and where we lost three out of four judicial elections last year, having that particularly in a key presidential state where the president of the United States was going to be running on that ballot and would need support — that this was not a good allocation of our resources. It would have drawn resources from other states to pick up seats.”

A Pro-Life Party

Contrary to those who insist pro-life challengers such as Toomey must always be supported in order to advance the pro-life agenda, Santorum argued for a more sophisticated approach based on maintaining the pro-life political party's majority status.

“How can we be in the best position to confirm judges who I believe will carry out the laws in a manner consistent with my philosophy? Where are we going to get enough votes to ensure that Bill Frist is going to be majority leader next year and we have the kind of agenda that is going to move the cause of life forward?” Santorum said he asked himself. Frist is a pro-life senator from Tennessee.

If Democrats — overwhelmingly pro-abortion — retake the Senate, they will choose the majority leader, who has the most influence on the Senate's business, such as whether judicial nominations or pro-life legislation — such as the newly introduced Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act — get floor votes.

Santorum, a party leader as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, also said pro-lifers should welcome Specter as Judiciary Committee chairman. Specter's chairman-ship “will be a good thing for judicial nominations,” Santorum said.

“First off, he had voted for every single Bush nominee, has voted for every one to come out of committee and he feels very strongly that the committee should not be the place where judicial nominations die,” he said. “He's been very aggressive, and I would argue would be more aggressive than Sen. [Orrin] Hatch [current judiciary committee chairman] has been in moving nominees to the floor.

“So if the concern from the pro-life community is that Specter is pro-choice and therefore he is someone who will block pro-life nominees, I can tell you he has no litmus test for judges. I've worked with him. We have confirmed 20 judges from Pennsylvania, five just recently. I don't know of any of them that were not pro-life.”

Santorum noted that though Specter helped kill Bork's nomination, he was instrumental in getting pro-life Clarence Thomas, a constitutionalist judge — one who believes in making decisions based on the actual wording of the Constitution — confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.

Other pro-life leaders expressed skepticism about the future with Specter. Judie Brown, president of American Life League, said Santorum's support for Specter was “a tragedy.”

“Our loyalty is to the unborn child, not to any party,” Brown said.

She also said that many in the pro-life movement have been too focused on overturning Roe v. Wade and should focus on legislation that can pass Congress with majority votes. The pro-abortion Specter, as judiciary chairman, will decide whether much of that legislation ever receives hearings.

Wendy Wright, senior policy director at Concerned Women for America, said cautiously, “Rather than project doom based on Sen. Specter's history, I would like to be optimistic. I hope he will conduct the business of the Judiciary Committee in an evenhanded manner.”

Changing Hearts

Specter has made public statements that seem to support Santo-rum's contention that Specter favors moving nominees out of committee, pro-life or not.

“It is time for a truce. It is time for an armistice,” Specter says on his Web site. “If a nominee qualifies, he or she ought to be confirmed, regardless of ideology.”

In a July 23, 2003, press release, Specter stated that though he might vote against Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor (a pro-life Catholic) on the Senate floor, he voted for him in committee.

“In voting to send Attorney General Pryor's nomination to the floor, I note that the Constitution provides that confirmations are to be decided by the Senate and not just the Judiciary Committee,” he said.

But the most important key to changing the judiciary's anti-life and pro-homosexual bias is getting Supreme Court justices who will not legislate from the bench. How Specter would treat a constitutionalist Supreme Court nominee in committee is an open question.

“It is obvious that Supreme Court nominations are totally different from lesser federal courts where all agree they are bound by and agree to defer to Supreme Court interpretations,” he said in the press release.

John Miller of National Review Online reported March 26 that Specter might oppose the two most constitutionalist, pro-life justices on the court if Bush chose to elevate one to chief justice, even though Specter fought for one's confirmation.

“Specter still won't commit to voting for Thomas if he were nominated for chief justice,” Miller wrote. “‘I'd want to think about that,’ he says. What about Antonin Scalia for chief justice? ’I'd want to think about that, too.’”

“Getting pro-lifers on the Supreme Court is the most crucial thing,” said Darla St. Martin, associate executive director of National Right to Life. As for Specter, she said, “He's made no commitments to us.”

“We didn't support Specter,” she said. “We supported Toomey, of course.”

For Santorum, there is an activity that is more important, ultimately, than stumping for one candidate or another: changing hearts and minds.

“I would encourage the faith leaders in our country to continue to teach,” he said. “I think there are far too many churches, particularly Catholic churches, that are not teaching the faith and integral parts of the faith having to do with abortion. … The more faithful to the teachings of the Church Catholics are, the better chance we have to change politicians’ lives and how they feel about this issue.”

Joseph D'Agostino writes from Washington, D.C.