Please pick up your cyber-copy of the Washington Post and click here. Then click here. One thing is clear. This should be an interesting year at the annual March for Life on Jan. 23 here in Washington, D.C.

We are currently at the stage where it is very important for people on both sides of the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. to say that there is more to this battle than abortion. But the headlines, day after day, are likely to show that, while there is more to the debate than abortion, the subject of abortion will always loom in the background.

Yes, it certainly does appear that Roe v. Wade has settled this painful issue in American life. Right, Richard Cohen? Right, Justice Clarence Thomas? (Scroll down for the comment.)

Gentle people in the media-bias study centers, prepare to start your content-analysis work. This is all a test run for the next nomination, which would almost certainly be the swing vote.

Oh, how I do wish that David Shaw could write about all of this. This is one of those stories that will be so hot, MSM editors should consider running two stories every day -- with veteran, skilled reporters assigned to the religious right and to the powerful coalition on the religious and secular left.

I think this strategy could work, even thought it seems to undercut that question I have been asking here at GetReligion for a long time. If the religious left is for Roe and the religious right is opposed to Roe, what is the compromise position? What would have to happen at the U.S. Supreme Court for a compromise to take place?