[Torie]

For a court to decide the fetuses are persons under the Constitution would be judicial activism in the extreme, totally without any precedent. Beyond the merits, Roe v Wade, and more so its progeny, did great damage to our jurisprudential and politial system, and going in the opposite direction would compound the problem. Abortion is an issue that must be decided in the public square, which I think would find an intelligent compromise that would at least reduce the level of toxic waste being poured into the public square to more manageable levels. Time has proved that this issue is ill suited in so many ways to judicial activism.

[jwalsh07]

I think you're right about the public square. I know you're right about the damage Roe v Wade has inflicted. A look at Chuck Shumer foaming at the mouth is evidence of that.

So, pulling on my running shoes, you would think that overturning Roe and returning the issue to the states is the proper course of action?

Every day Mom's all across America are viewing 3 and 4D images of their babies in vitro. Minds are being changed and positions are being modified.

[RobbyS]

Well, one CAN deplore the uses to which the 14th Amendment has been put, but since the Courts have already intervened, the Courts must be used to disintangle the mess. The amendment process serves only one purpose and that it to ratify a consensus. That is why the 19th Amendment did not work and why it took a hundred years for the 14th Amendment to be applied for the purpose it was intended, which was to protect blacks from white majorities at the polls and white mobs in the streets. All along the Congress had the authority to force the states to abolish those laws that violated the plain intent of the Amendment, and Congress would not, nor would a majority of the states.