And the ABA being neutral is consistant with the Constitution. She has proven she's pro-life beyond rational argument as evidenced by her personal and professional actions witnessed by many others. Neutrality on abortion is how many things should be. Because if this country becomes strongly opposed to things in nature that Christianity is opposed to, that means someday it could be opposed to Christianity itself, and that is not a precedent that I would want set. She was arguing that it was not appropriate for the ABA to have taken a stand in favor of abortion. Arguing they should be actively opposed to abortion would have been as morally wrong and dangerous as it is for them to be against it. If an entity can be made to be against what you are against, it can also be made to be for what you are against. Where do you go from there?
I agree that the ABA should be neutral. I'm not sure that neutrality on abortion is "consistent with the Constitution," which protects the inalienable right to life. The stance of the Texas Bar Association is not something in which I am tremendously interested, and was not one of the major points of my previous post. I was simply stating that Miers has not made activism against abortion her life's work, as you seemed to have claimed.
Responding to your second point, "if an entity can be made to be against what you are against, it can also be made to be for what you are against. Where do you go from there?", Would you then suggest that we should not try to pull the Supreme Court to the Right, as it could eventually swing Left again?
How is opposition to abortion "morally wrong?"