Our friend EV makes a very valid point regarding Amendment V. It says "No person". Therefore the question is 'what is a person?'. Personally, I think that a fetus is indeed a 'person' encompassed by Amendment V and is obviously entitled to all the protections regarding 'life, liberty, and property.'
However, I doubt that this SCOTUS, or any SCOTUS likely to be sitting in my lifetime will make such a sweeping ruling. What I do think is an attainable goal is for the next SCOTUS to rule that Roe was and is a hideous ruling and overturning it.
Then, the abortion question would return to the status quo ante. Simply put, the 'several states' would be able to regulate it as they see fit. To my mind, this would be a huge improvement over what we have today.
Some states would, quite rightly to my mind, ban the procedure entirely. Other states would allow it with some restrictions, and one or two would allow it almost without any restrictions.
Now, at the risk of starting a fight which I can't finish this eventing, I say that that would be a huge step forward. To get SCOTUS to at least admit that a mistake was made of the magnitude of Dred Scott would be the judicial event of a lifetime.
I for one could die satisfied knowing that such a step in the right direction was taken.
It may take a generation, or even two for the SCOTUS to finally rule that a fetus is indeed a 'person' and as such cannot be deprived of 'life' without judicial process. But, I'll be happy to see the small step in the right direction taken.
If SCOTUS rules that Roe was a mistake, and returns the matter to the several states, that will still save millions of lives. And that my friend, would be a very good thing.
A journey of a thousand miles, starts with a single step after all.
Now, to close my rather long winded reply I wish you and yours a most joyful Thanksgiving.
Warm regards,
L
I think that would be a stretch. That amendment, it seems to me, is addressing a specific point, not a sweeping one. It deals with capital punishment, and merely lays down some basic civil rights before execution. To use that clause, through a court decision, to make abortion unconstitutional would, to me, be a perversion of the process. Not that our political enemies (and even some of our friends) don't do it all the time, but that doesn't change the fact.
I think the cleanest, simplest, best way to assert a constitutional ban on abortion is by amendment. When slavery was outlawed, they didn't assert that slavery was always unconstitutional, they amended the document. Think about that. When women got the right to vote, they didn't assert that the right was already in the constitution; they amended it. If slavery was constitutional. If denying suffrage to women was constitutional. Then what is abortion?
Seems to me, an amendment would answer it once and for all. Amendment is the instrument of change created by the Constitution itself. An amendment that passes has the will of the people, the states, and the framers on its side. It carries the full weight and force of our system of government. It has, in fact, the same weight as any other part of the Constitution.
The people might not want that, though. So what is the next best thing, looked at not with the goal of ending abortion, but with the goal of preserving and promoting good government? It seems to me, it is to defer to the states and to the people to answer the question in their own way and time.
And I hope your Thanksgiving was full of family, friends, good cheer and good food! It's 3:33 and I'm still up!