[kevkrom]

Of course there is, if you believe, as common sense dictates, that unborn babies are “persons.” They are then covered explicitly by the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The 5th Amendment doesn't apply, as that refers to actions taken by the federal government to proactively deprive anyone of life.

The 14th Amendment might apply (I say might, because we still have the problem of the state proactively denying life vs. passively staying out of things altogether -- I'll let the legal scholars debate how far the Amendment applies). But even with the most pro-life interpretation, you would still seem to have no clue as to what that actually means. Each state still may make its own laws, but those laws would have to be subject to a 14th Amendment review. Nonetheless, it gives the federal government NO jurisdiction over the writing of, or enforcement of, those state laws.

For you to believe otherwise invokes the absurd example again -- should the UN, who otherwise has no authorization of the laws and the execution of those laws inside the US, be allowed to nevertheless impose and enforce laws on the US because of a universal truth? Of course not. Then why do you want the federal government to regulate the states when it has no authority to do so?

[EternalVigilance]

You’re making the same error that another poster already made on this thread, which misunderstanding was dealt with in detail last night.

The Bill of Rights does not just limit the federal government. It protects unalienable rights. That’s why it is called “the Bill of Rights.”