As we work our way through the 2008 elections, the temptation will be great to be swept away by grand rhetoric and glib assumptions. One thing to count on is that political consultants will try to have the candidates fire up their base voters with tried-and-true propaganda.

On no issue will this be clearer than with abortion. The Democratic nominee and running mate can be counted on to insist loudly that they will stand up for "a woman's right to choose." The GOP candidates will issue the obligatory promise to name Supreme Court justices who "interpret the law, not make it" (i.e., will overturn Roe v. Wade).

Interest groups on both sides will reinforce the partisan messages. Democratic spinmeisters will hype the alleged threat to Roe v. Wade unless a Democratic president gets to nominate the next justices. Republican consultants will insinuate that Roe-v.-Wade will soon be gone if only the country elects yet another GOP president to name still more conservatives to the Supreme Court.

But is Roe v. Wade really so fragile?

To quote Ronald Reagan at the 1988 GOP convention, "facts are stubborn things." And how fitting it is to quote Reagan, as his record of appointing two pro-choice justices and only one pro-lifer to the Supreme Court (in stark contrast to his pro-life image) is the classic two-step on abortion.

In 1989, a tough anti-abortion law aimed in part at overturning Roe v. Wade passed the Democratic-controlled Pennsylvania House of Representatives, the GOP-controlled state Senate and was signed by Democratic Gov. Bob Casey.

This law was immediately challenged by Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. The dispute became the landmark 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood case, widely seen as the Supreme Court's best opportunity to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision.

A curious pattern emerges when analyzing how the justices appointed by Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush ruled in this case.

Five GOP appointees used the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision to keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land. The justices and the GOP presidents who appointed them were: Harry Blackmun (Nixon), John Paul Stevens (Ford), Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan), Anthony Kennedy (Reagan), and David Souter (Bush 1). A Democratic appointee joined three Republican appointees in trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Democratic justice was Byron White, appointed by President John Kennedy (you won't hear Planned Parenthood or the Democratic National Committee mention that!). The GOP appointees were William Rehnquist (Nixon), Antonin Scalia (Reagan) and Clarence Thomas (Bush 1).

Look beyond the partisan rhetoric this year, and the truth is that many Democrats played a major role in passing the toughest anti-abortion law in America. The only Democratic appointee on the court at that time wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned. A majority of Republican justices then used a ruling on the Pennsylvania law to keep Roe v. Wade intact.

All of which should serve as a big warning sign for abortion-issue voters as they hear interest group leaders beat the drums to keep "their" voters in lockstep partisan formation.

Both sides assume that President George W. Bush's nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, are willing to overturn Roe v. Wade. But given the judicial history on this issue, it is instructive to keep something in mind about the court's newest members.

In sworn testimony during his 2005 confirmation hearings before the Senate, now-Chief Justice Roberts reiterated that he considered Roe v. Wade to be "settled law." Many people interpret settled law to mean that even if it was wrongly decided, a decision has become so embedded in legal precedent and the broader culture that it must be kept in place.

President Bush's other appointee, Samuel Alito, pointedly refused under oath to make this assertion in response to the same question.

In short, it is quite possible that the current President Bush has done what his father and other Republican predecessors have done, intentionally or inadvertently: court the GOP's anti-abortion base with pro-life rhetoric and the occasional pro-life nominee, while appointing enough pro-choice justices to keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land. By continuing to let Roe v. Wade appear to dangle by a thread, the GOP can tap a limitless supply of pro-life votes and activists while not breaking with too many pro-choice Republican voters.

In turn, the Democratic ticket will want to fire up its own pro-choice base while trying to win over as many pro-choice GOP voters as possible.

So both parties' presidential tickets and their interest group allies will hype the alleged threat to Roe v. Wade. Millions of dollars will be raised using pro-choice scare tactics and glittering pro-life promises. Millions of voters will be tempted to believe them, and they will vote and contribute to campaigns accordingly.

When bombarded with these messages, pro-life and pro-choice voters alike would be wise to remember:

Facts are stubborn things.