Until Roe is overturned, Hunter's bill would probably be a clay target in the courts.
Hunter has been proposing the Right to Life bill since 1996, getting more and more cosponsors. He is the real deal. And speaking of the courts, who do you trust would unequivocally put pro-lifers on the bench?
I want federalists on the bench. Such persons would overturn Roe. And help trim down the size of federal government by looking to the 10th.
I don't want activists of ANY stripe on SCOTUS. They will be tempted to uphold political agendas that come before them, instead of just upholding the law.
No, actually. Roe V. Wade left open the possibility that the legislature could define personhood, which was not explicit in the constitution. There is a very real chance, especially with a conservative leaning court, that any challenge to the Right to Life Act would fail. Like I said, it must be on all fronts. And one of those fronts MUST be a amendment to overturn R.v W. as well. Life is not a states right issue if you understand the unborn to be human beings.
So you define all those who see the unborn as human lives as activists? The only activists are those trying to obscure that FACT.
The Constitution is the law.
The founders made it clear in the Preamble, the pretext for the document, that it was written and enacted to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
They wisely put future generations, us, on equal footing with themselves when it came to the right to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty.
Then, in the Fifth Amendment, the very heart of the original Bill of Rights, they made it very clear:
"No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law..." [ie a fair trial on a capital offense.]
The Fourteenth Amendment, added much later, simply expands on what was already clear in the Fifth.
As far as I know, every State constitution contains identical language...some of them adopting the immortal pro-life words from the Declaration as well.
If you're a sane person, and can recognize the simple self-evident fact that an unborn child is a person, you can't then argue that they aren't therefore protected by our Constitution. Not even Blackmun was foolish enough to assert that. He had to invent the fiction that the unborn aren't people.