Apparently President-elect Barack Obama is inspiring everybody these days, even right wing extremists. Take, for example, Gary Bauer of the right wing group American Values, who recently explained, "I found myself thinking, 'My goodness, I can't believe he's (Obama) going to make it this easy for us to rally our troops to get off the mat and get back to work." Wendy Wright, president of anti-contraception group Concerned Women for America, seems to relish her loser status as much as Bauer. She waxes almost romantic, "I knew, moments after the election results came in, that I was now part of the resistance movement." Bill Donohue of the Catholic League dispensed with resistance and quickly went on the offensive. "If Obama signs the freedom of Choice Act or FOCA you will have a culture war the likes of which you have never seen before," he said. FOCA would make abortion a right under federal law so that even if Roe v Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court abortion will continue to be legal.

Some in the anti-choice establishment have cautiously stuck a toe onto the common ground that Obama has suggested is findable – ground from which opponents can search for ways to make abortion less necessary. The Old Guard, by contrast, is inspired in another way. It insists on treating a potential turning point as another inning in an unending grudge match. From the looks of it, they expect to dust off the same old playbook. Here are a couple of plays to take note of:

Play #1, find something incendiary (even if fake) to rally followers. As Michael Lindsay, a political sociologist at Rice University in Houston told Reuters in the wake of Obama's landslide victory, "In order for the social conservatives to succeed, they will need to have something to mobilize against. It could be an issue or the congressional leadership." Without the fictitious "partial birth abortion" issue that anti-choice groups used artfully for over a decade, extremists will have to find a new issue to quickly mischaracterize. Enter the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). "The challenge starting first thing ... is raising "awareness" about just how extreme his (Obama's) agenda is, starting with (FOCA)," said Charmaine Yoest, president of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life Action (quote marks mine). Likewise, Concerned Women for America put out a press release detailing their first action after the inauguration:

"Two days after Barack Obama's inauguration, pro-lifers will be doubling their impact during the March for Life, the annual pro-life rally in Washington, D.C., held on January 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. As tens of thousands gather to oppose the deadly Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion, Concerned Women for America (CWA) will be handing out snacks with information on how to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a bill supported by Obama. The next day, pro-lifers in Washington and around the country will be joining CWA's FOCA Lobby Day by contacting their congressmen – in person or by phone – urging them to oppose this bill…"

Choosing FOCA as a target serves extremists choice in several ways. One key advantage is that, though Obama favors it, even pro-choice advocates do not expect it to pass soon. This offers a protracted period to scare and misinform the public. And so the antis are putting together their talking points. In doing so they're studying the strategies of Karl Rove, mastermind of that recent unpleasantness a.k.a. the Bush presidency. Rove's genius was to identify emotionally charged wedge issues – abortion, homosexuality, guns – which so roused targeted populations that they voted against their own larger interests. Jack and Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life would like to do the same. Yesterday they posted a blog entitled, "How Would Karl Rove Fight FOCA?" A large segment of "pro-life" sympathetizers voted for Obama this election; still the Yoests posit that with the right Rovean wedge – or wedge within a wedge – they can incite even pro-choice voters.

Which leads to Play #2: Cast FOCA as a parent's rights issue. It's a favorite gambit. Recast the debate in not only false but inflammatory terms. They tried the same play with the HPV vaccine when they tried to keep the cervical cancer prevention method from becoming a state mandated vaccination. Expect a similar "parent's rights" line of argument to resurface with FOCA.

The Yoests write: "Conservative Pro-Lifers will be able to unify and bring together even Pro-Choicers who are concerned about knowing if their daughters are going to have an abortion…All parents want to know if their children are playing with edged weapons and more so if they go under the knife. Rove would suggest targeting this constituency who would have a passionate position on knowing if their children are going to have surgery by strangers. And who would be paying for the abortion. No parent would allow a stranger to give candy to their children; parents would not allow a stranger to operate on their child. Rove would identify this group, persuade them and then prompt them to action. The fear that mom and dad will lose control over their healthcare decisions of their child is worrisome enough without Uncle Sam stepping in."

Their claims against the HPV vaccination were hyped. Every state but Mississippi had a generous opt-out provision for its vaccination programs. Similarly, they will fan fears over FOCA even if not true. After all, Maryland and Maine both have active parental involvement laws and also passed the Freedom of Choice Act.

The truth has rarely gotten in the way of reproductive rights opponents. Even the age of evidence, which is what Obama says he will rely on in making decisions, an energized, inspired right wing will try to win with old-fashioned Rovean fear. Somethings never change.