You’re misunderstanding my question. Am not debating whether or not the “right” for an abortion exists in the Constitution. I think you and I agree that it doesn’t. My question pertains to concern over the priest’s stance. If life issues hold so much weight, is it not pertinent to ask whether he would advise Bush to disregard the Constitution in pursuit of that goal? Where does he draw the line?
I see what you’re asking, and I would not want to speak for the priest on this...
I think that because the rights to life and liberty are so very important, the Constitution must not be disregarded. It’s not a matter of outweighing; I think many priests will agree with my viewpoint that any God-given right outweighs a man-made document, no matter how fine a document it is. But in this society, in order to realistically achieve a goal regarding human rights, it must be done within the Constitution. And so I don’t think (though I cannot speak for this priest, this is just my opinion) he would advise Bush to disregard the Constitution, not because the Constitution outweighs the right to life but because without the Constitution that right will never be guaranteed in this country and abortion would be back before you’re done saying “Goodbye Planned Parenthood.” It’s just sensible.
Simple solution to your dilemma - Right to Life amendment.
Constitution saved, babies saved.