REALLY? I’m pro-life, but would you please explain where, in the Constitution, it says life begins at conception and that it is the role of the federal government to protect the unborn?
Uh, the amendment simply clarifies the fourteenth, as to who fits under the term “person”—that human beings exist from the point of conception is JUST PLAIN COMMON SENSE and would never have been questioned apart from stupid abortion-lovers. The Constitution/14th Amendment grants rights to people. Because some people tend to deny peoplehood to other people (slaves, the unborn), peoplehood has to be defined. It shouldn’t have to be but because of R v W and the pro-abortion lobby, it now does.
If the 14th amendment was a legitimate federalist addition to the Constitution, clarifying what had become controversial, a Human Life Amendment is every bit as legitimate constitutionally. Not that it’s likely ever to be ratified, but supporting it is like supporting the 14th amendment—it makes a point once for all about the unborn (blacks) being entitled to the protection of personhood under the law. Rights of persons is part of the Constitution, indeed, last I checked, fairly centrally part of the Constitution.
It doesn't. That's why conservatives want to put it in the Constitution. Not Fred though. He won't dance to anyone's tune.