One can argue, as you point out, that a constitutional right to life makes abortion unconstitutional. That is not the view, so far as I know, of Scalia, and yet Scalia is acceptable to me.
Therefore, for me, a strict construction of federal authority is more important to me than is the assertion of a constitutional protection of prenatal life. I think that is an important difference.
Doesn't mean I can't play in the sandbox with pro lifers. Just means the issue to me is judicial activism, not abortion.
I'm with you on strict Constitutional constructionism, but anyone who has taken time to examine the subject of abortion must come away with a passionate opinion, either for or against. For those truly informed on the matter, there is no gray area.
Abortion, like theft, rape, murder and larceny, are all issues that a state legislature should decide upon, with the exception of acts while on Federal property. While personally against it, I'd rather see California be pro-abort (and anti-death penalty) while I live in a no-abort state than have some black-robed oligarch make the decision all by himself.
For me, abortion itself isn't the critical issue. Roe v. Wade was an abomination that took the decision out of the hands of more local government. It's a step on the path that leads to a complete authoritarian central government.
As long as Roe stands, the ability of the federal judiciary to move into any area it wants to hangs over our heads. Roe must be defeated before we get other, similiar sweeping decisions from the courts on other issues that should be kept at the state level.
If strict constitutionists are appointed to the USSC, we are likely to get decisions that roll back scores of laws on gun control, religion, environmental policy and other issues.
Like you, I'm with the pro-lifers on this issue, up to a point. I don't want the USSC to find abortion illegal. That's no better than what we have now. Another court in a few years could just switch it back, perhaps on a narrow, technical issue.
What I want is a court that sets precedents based around the 9th and 10th Amendments, pushing back the roll of the Federal government and returning the power to the states.
A good model for federal abortion policy by the USSC would be the death penalty statues. States all have different policies on the death penalty. All of them were nullified by one Supreme Court decision due to technical reasons, but the decision only required that the states write better laws. Most of them did and the death penalty is back in operation in most states.
Likewise, a defeat of Roe would return abortion policy to the states. Some of those laws will be poorly written and could be overturned at the Federal level. That's ok, since the state legistlature can just write a new law that fixes the problem.
That's the proper function of the USSC, to ensure that state laws do not violate the legitimate civil right of its citizens. When they do, they get thrown out and the state gets to try again. That's federalism and it works for most other policies. Current abortion policy isn't federalism and it's got to go.