In George Will's most recent opinion, Abortion's "So-What" Factor, published in the Washington Post this weekend and syndicated nationwide, he suggests that pro-choice people need not be concerned with the presidential candidates stands on abortion because, he argues, even if Roe is overturned the right to abortion would be decided by the states. Not only should a presidential candidate's promise to overturn Roe matter to pro-choice voters, it should be of great concern to pro-life voters too. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, no less than 21 states would likely outlaw abortion if Roe were overturned and, if current rates continue, leave approximately 400,000 women each year in need of an abortion with no legal and safe local option. Sadly, under 'pro-life' leadership, those 400,000 women will not be given greater access to pregnancy prevention either. There's not one pro-life organization in the country that supports contraception and so far not one "pro-life" presidential candidate has come forward in support of contraception either. The candidate's positions on prevention should be what voters on both sides of this issue consider most important. Voters should know that the greatest decline in abortion rates in the history of our country took place under our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton. They should also know that under our current "pro-life" president abortion rates are rising. Clinton supported proven effective contraceptive programs, Bush funds proven-to-fail abstinence-until marriage programs. People on both sides of the abortion issue should care about results. Prosecution doesn't reduce abortion, prevention does. "So-what" about that?