An interesting idea. Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. However, I see the following scenario being played out:
After a long hard battle (probably extending through the 2006 elections) Bush and other Republicans get such legistlation passed.
Some pro death group or groups challenge such legistlation passed by Congress as "unconstitutional". Now, of course, the very nature of the new law isn't unconstitutional, as you showed. However, this doesn't matter in today's soundbyte, single issue world. It simply doesn't. IOW, we can't expect our country to suddenly revert to the principles of what it was SUPPOSED to be, overnight. If that were the case, then an astute, committed lawyer could simply challenge Roe v Wade on the basis that it takes away the States' Rights to govern themselves, which is also in the Constitution.
No, the fact that we are in the situation that we are in now should prove to anyone that strict constitional means to end abortion simply won't do. The challenge I spoke of at the beginning of the last paragraph will be there, and it WILL be heard by the courts. When I originally started writing my reply to you I had intended to say at this juncture that it would probably be overturned, but now I'm not even sure about that! After thinking about it even just writing this post! You and I both know that this country is HARDLY what the founding fathers envisioned. Why should we think that a strict interpretation of Constitutional Law will get us out of the baby killing mess we're in now? Besides, even if the challgenge were overturned (or dismissed) it'd take years, at least another 1 or 2, and by that time, we really can't hazzard a guess as to the make up of the Congress, or even the Presidency. By after all this time (at LEAST 3 years), the Congress and Presidency could all be Dem again, and then, as I said in my original post to you, there wouldn't really be any motivation anymore to "limit judicial opinion or authority".
Now contrast that, with the strategy the President (seems to) have now. Nominating 2 (possibly 3) justicies to the SC during his 4 years of presidency, thus ASSURING that any new anti-abortion law that's challenged by these baby killing groups WILL be supported. Slowly whittling away Roe V Wade until it becomes nothing but the paper on which it's written. In 4 years we could be in a position to completely stop virtually all abortions. Contrast that with your plan, where in 4 years we've spent countless man hours and money battling in courts for a law that ultimately could easily be REVERSED by the very same process you describe.
It seems pretty clear to me which is the most reasonable plan. And as far as ANY charge goes that Bush has done very little to stop the murder of babies, I would point you and everyone to Mr. Silverback's extensive list which Planned Parenthood compiled. I think if PP is worried about something, they more than anyone should know if it REALLY is a threat to the abortion industry.
Besides, to think that Congressman Paul, as esteemed and intellegent I'm sure he is, is any more intelligent and/or savvy than the President and his team of researchers/legal advisors, is, IMO, more a statement of faith from a loyalist, rather than an objective view of the facts.
And that major problem's name is Miguel Estrada. Many people believe that Bush will nominate him to SCOTUS if/when the opportunity arrises and MOST in the Pro-Life movement believe he is far less than Pro-Life.
Hoping guessing how a justice will rule is not wise to bank on, and that makes We the People Act (HR 3893) that much more needed. It ACTIVLY corrects the courts while hoping new justices will rule pro-life has historiclly been VERY disappointing, as the greater majority of the Roe court were Republican appointments as is today's court.
And FWIW--I posted a list similar to Mr. Silverback's from another source and other articles praising the Bush administration on Pro-Life on more than one ocassion, so I am in no way against the man, I just want to challenge him to do more.