blatham wrote:Fedral wrote:
Quote:Oh MY! It's TERRIBLE!
Citizens of a state working within the bounds of the state's framework of law to change the law to reflect the 'will of the people'.
..."to reflect the will of the people"?
Which people? How do you determine their 'will'? Are we free of all concern that activists of any sort or motivated by any ideology might move to alter or create laws which are not actually held by a majority?
Then you still have the dilemma of whether or not the majority's will ought to trump all else, including the Constitution.
But the question I'm looking at here is who actually wishes Roe to fall?
I wish Roe to fall.
Which people? The people. Expressed as locally as possible.
How do we determine their will? We invite them to vote.
The Majority's will should not trump the Constitution.
This is not a legitimate question as respects the issue of Roe v Wade.
The legitimate question is whether or not their is any grounds to assert that the Constitution protects the right of a woman to have an abortion.
Even the most ardent Pro-Choicers will not suggest that the Constitution directly addresses the issue of abortion.
How then do Pro-Choice proponents make an argument that the right to kill a fetus is protected under the Constitution?
Why it's the Right to Privacy!
Now, if it weren't hard enough to demonstrate a cogent link between privacy and abortion, to go the next step, you have to find privacy protected by the Constitution.
No matter where you fall on the issue, only the rabid and/or intellectually dishonest among us will suggest that a right to abortion is a Constitutional slam dunk.