Abortion
Abortion is a wedge issue, not a Constitutional one. The Constitution neither
creates nor guarantees a right to abortion, any more than it grants the federal
government authority to ban it. Abortion simply is not a Constitutional issue.
It is claimed to be so by both sides for their respective purposes, when in
fact both parties have for many years been substantially indifferent to what
the Constitution says one way or the other.My personal view on abortion is that when the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is weighed against the rights of something most people couldn't identify even with a microscope, the right of the woman prevails, particularly when that right must otherwise be actively and problematically suppressed by government force. And whatever your definition of moral is in such circumstances, it's certainly an easier thing to be for someone else. That having been said, I think many abortion advocates err in not openly recognizing that at same point abortion merges into infanticide. But the absence of any clear controlling Constitutional provision makes for extremes on both sides. I expect that in the not so long term, technology will all but render the question moot, except for those who insist that even contraception is immoral and must be opposed, but they are clearly beyond reason anyway.
As a practical matter, it seems that to be effective a ban on abortion would of necessity be federal, as any ban at the state level would only deny abortion to those women without the means to cross a state line. However, though the Constitution could of course be ignored the right way by the right judges I suspect that before this happened the political dynamics of a potential federal ban would run up against the rocks of public opinion. I think if the anti-abortion forces ever succeeded in getting a federal ban on abortion it would do to the Republicans what the assault weapon ban did to the Democrats, which is to say mobilize a large but otherwise dormant voting block by directly impacting them with legislation. And all the rhetoric aside, I think it's unlikely the Republicans are going to thus risk their margin of power for fetuses (note: I need to update this from 2006, since the Republicans no longer have a margin of power).
addendum:
(11/29/06)- Speaking of contraception, Bush just appointed somebody who opposes it to lead the federal program for it. Not making that up. According to CNN, appointee Eric Keroack's organization believes, and get this, that contraception actually increases the rate of unwanted pregnancies.
The federal government has no Constitutional authority in this area, but if they're going to spend money on it anyway then it seems like the person in charge of the program should at least think it's a good idea. Right?
Like I said above- they are clearly beyond reason.
addendum2:
(2/14/08) I notice Bob's posted a speech he made against foreign aid money going toward organizations that facilitate abortion, and what I'd like to know is who put him in charge of deciding which medical procedures I'm going to be paying for around the world.
addendum3:
(6/16/08) Here's an article by Ron Paul that the campaign manager just emailed me- The Partial Birth Abortion Ban. We're on the same Constitutional page on this. That someone might want the Constitution to say something doesn't mean it does.
