Abortion

I have taken the pro-life position that the “right” of a women to choose is waived at the moment she voluntarily consents to intercourse by operation of law. However, it is difficult to argue that a women has waived that right when she was raped or was the victim of incest.

In my opinion, the pro-life movement should focus its attention not on the symptoms of a situation (abortion) but on the root cause. We live in a society that has marketed irresponsible behavior to our children to a degree previously unknown in modern history. If we would choose to greatly diminish the porn-prostitution industry and remove copyright protections for media that markets this to our kids, then I believe we could build a society where far fewer citizens place themselves into a situation where they feel they have to make that difficult choice of life over abortion.

Also troubling to me is the constitutional interpretation that has removed this issue from publicly elected officials. In reality, this issue has become an irrelevant question to ask a congressman/woman on how he/she stands. In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court took the Roe v. Wade decision, which was a gang rape case, and extended it to provide a new right that did not exist either when the constitution was written in 1787 or when it was supplemented with the 14th Amendment in the 19th Century.

I am an original intent, strict constructionist when it comes to constitutional hermeneutics. I do not support judges amending the constitution by fiat outside the constitutionally proscribed process. Therefore, I would say that abortion falls under what is know as “police powers” (health, education, welfare, and morality) and that the states have exclusive jurisdiction over abortion, at least whenever the activity does not substantially affect interstate commerce.