[MadIvan]

It's fairly sad that a British person has to point this out to you, but there are several obstacles to overturning Roe vs. Wade. Firstly, the Supreme Court hasn't overturned it yet; note, it's the Supreme Court, not the President, who does that. Second, even if it is overturned, the Constitution is specific - the powers not enumerated in it are reserved for the states or the people, namely, it would come down to a state by state vote on the subject, unless, of course, you could get an anti-abortion amendment to the constitution.

Unless a Supreme Court justice dies, Rudy has no effect on the first item - he has already said he would appoint judges like Roberts and Alito. The second item, he has no effect on at all.

The President is not a King. But then again, strange a British person has to remind you of that...but obviously the spleen is not an organ for thinking.

Ivan

[EternalVigilance]

Second, even if it is overturned, the Constitution is specific - the powers not enumerated in it are reserved for the states or the people, namely, it would come down to a state by state vote on the subject, unless, of course, you could get an anti-abortion amendment to the constitution.

Oh Lord. Being preached to by a Brit on the American Constitution. It's really too late at night for this. But, here's your answer anyway: The Court could rule that the child in the womb is a person (which they are, of course) leaving them protected by the words of the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Bingo. Problem solved.

[upsdriver]

I know full well what we are up against concerning abortions. But I will never intentionally vote for any person who believes that murdering unborn babies is acceptable. Why do you think I am so against Rudy getting the nomination? I sincerely want someone I can vote for.

The people can nominate anyone they want, but my vote has to be earned. It's that simple.

[Prokopton]

"Second, even if it is overturned, the Constitution is specific - the powers not enumerated in it are reserved for the states or the people, namely, it would come down to a state by state vote on the subject, unless, of course, you could get an anti-abortion amendment to the constitution."

I don't know if you've actually ever read our Constitution but you might want to take a look at Amendment V. which states, "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

The right to life is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The killing of babies in the womb is contrary to our Constitution and therefore is a Federal, not a State, issue.