Can you say “irony?”

It is doubtful that even the most casual follower of political news remains unaware of the intriguing special election in Massachussetts tomorrow for the Senate seat of the late “lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy. All conventional wisdom, past precedent, polling, and common sense pointed towards Democratic Candidate Martha Coakley walking into Washington with ease, the actual matter of her election was supposed to be a technical formality, kind of like serving in the House of Lords in the British Parliament.

But a surreal swing is in play right now. Unknown Republican challenger Scott Brown has waged a skilled insurgency, and in a matter of weeks has all but erased a thirty point deficit in the polls, in an election (it bears repeating) for Edward Kennedy’s Senate Seat. Running an energetic campaign as a populist everyman against establishment Washington, and capitalizing off immeasureable Democratic complacency and a fanstastic string of Coakley miscues, Brown is now sitting, the day before the special election, leading in some polls (albeit generally within the margin of error).

Whether Brown wins tomorrow is still very much in doubt, and in state so traditionally democratic, one should think that even a moderate boost in turnout tomorrow can carry the day for Coakley. But Brown has hung his hat on opposing Obamacare for fiscal reasons, and his message appears to be resonating. Pro-lifers haven’t jumped into this race very heavily, and for the most part are watching with a slightly bemused air. Scott Brown is moderately pro-choice, preferring to uphold Roe. Has however, opposed Partial Birth Abortion, and supports conscience clause rights for hospitals. While he is no Henry Hyde, he is not exactly…well…Ted Kennedy. Martha Coakley, however, happens to be an Emily’s List Candidate, the pro-abortion Political Action Committee which only endorses the most ardent of pro-abortion politicians (i.e., would vote for FOCA).

So while Scott Brown may not actively support the pro-life movement, we can safely assume that he would actively hurt the pro-life movement far, far less, than Martha Coakley. And in a state as heavily liberal as Massachussetts, we might have to resign ourselves to this being the most one could reasonably expect.

Should Brown win tomorrow, he has pledged to vote against Health Care Reform in the Senate, and his presence would break the Democratic supermajority, giving the minority party the power to fillibuster once more.

Liberal pundits are aware of this, and are worried. Jonathan Cohn at TNR, outlines four options for Democratis on health care if Brown wins. Try to pass it before Brown can be sworn in, aim for a modified bill to pass the Senate via the reconciliation process (only requiring a bare majority of 51 votes), or try to win over moderate Republican Senators like Olympia Snowe of Maine. Then again:

Obviously, the alternative is option 4: Crawl into a hole and die. Now, the Republican mantra is that we should kill this bill and “start over.” But the truth is, there isn’t and has never been a real Republican plan on the table to deal with, and even the conservative plans that Republicans haven’t embraced are unworkable or do nothing. So walking away means admitting you did nothing on the issue that consumed most of your time, and wait for your November beating as a failed Congress running with a failed president. Numerous conservative pundits have advised Democrats to take this approach, but I don’t think it’s a very sensible plan.

We don’t care too much about general partisan politics here. But pro-lifers should at least be aware of the political landscape and know that other political issues can take matters out of our hands sometimes (e.g. the 2006/2008 elections saw many pro-life politicians voted out of office, and many pro-abortion politicians voted in. But those elections were not referendums on abortion, they were decided by public opinion on foreign and economic policy).

At the moment, health care “reform” remains the looming threat to the culture of life, and unless abortion and rationing are taken out of the bill, pro-lifers will have no choice but to oppose the bill as a whole, regardless of how we might otherwise feel about insurance exchange programs or “big pharmacy.”

If, by a long shot (but much less of a long shot than it was three weeks ago), Scott Brown wins tomorrow’s special election, a moderately pro-choice politician, from one of the most heavily liberal states in the country, by winning Edward Kennedy’s Senate Seat, might end up being the final bulwark against one of the potentially largest expansions of abortion since Roe vs. Wade.

Providence has a sense of humor.