Right. But in general, my point is that being for a pro-life amendment doesn't really illuminate her social -or- her judicial philosophy on the matter. She needs to express WHY she holds that postion in terms other than "I don't like abortion."
She may privately advocate status quo, and publicly advocate the Con Amendment process because it is unlikely to be implemented. She may privately hold that abortion is wrong, but publicly rule that ROe & Casey are settled law, based on social reliance on de-stigmatization of abortion, etc.
In short, she hasn't advanced ANY explanation that illuminates how she might rule from the bench.
I understand your concerns, and I follow your logic. Your concerns are valid.
Where I'm at....I consider abortion so abhorrent that I don't really care how it gets overruled. That said, I think her pro-life views are significant given what they are based on. She is an evangelical, conservative Christian.
That worldview will put her in such turmoil that she will go to the text of the Constitution and see if there really is a right to an abortion written into the constitution.
I find it absolutely unfathomable ethically that liberals today are celebrating the death of the 2000th soldier in Iraq when on their doorstep lie the tiny bodies of some 40 million aborted babies.
This is the moral issue of our age, and it is the basis of any outrage that God has with our culture.
Far beyond anything else, this must be changed.