Actually two points.
1) "Abortion" is not a right. The word appears nowhere in the constituion.
2) The constitution can only be ammended by legislative process, not a rogue judge.
As all else here, I thought Bush missed on this question entirely. He made his points, but he didn't exploit Kerry's blunders.
You obviously have not read Roe v Wade.
The Supreme Court recognized the inalienable right of "privacy," citing incorrectly Amendment XIV as the constitutional basis for the right of privacy when it should have been Amendment IX.
Then the Supreme Court, in a lenghty incorrect analysis, said that there was no way to confer the right of privacy and citizenship to fetus that could not survive outside a woman's body.
Thus during the first three months of pregnancy, government could not regulate the action of an abortion because medical procedures in 1972 were now safe enough for a woman to make the decision on her own whether to have an abortion.
After the third month of pregnancy, the state then could regulate the action of an abortion by requiring, for instance, that a woman have the abortion at a "licensed" facility only, in order to "protect" her health.
At some point, near the end of a preganancy, the state could then prohibit an abortion because the fetus is now "viable," and is conferred all of the "privileges and immunities" of any other human being and/or citizen.
So, the bottomline is the Supreme Court has declared a fetus a non-human being, nothing more than tissue inside a woman's body, similar to a gall bladder, that can be removed at her discretion, without government interference.
What has to change to end the brutality and horror of abortion is to confer the "rights" of a human being to a fetus at conception.
Then a woman could not make the unilateral decision to kill another human being that resides temporarily in her body, that she could not create on her own or came with her body upon her birth, similar to her arm.
only be ammended by legislative process, not a rogue judge"
Ths is not an accurate statement. Again, I don't think you have read the U.S. Constitution.
ARTICLE V
Amendments
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided,
I'd really like to agree with you on this point, but the reality is that "rogue judges" have been altering our Constitution incrementally for years, and our Congress has done nothing about it. A partial result of their "tinkering" has resulted in millions of the unborn being murdered.
The fact that someone running for the highest office in our country has a view of our Constitution as nothing more than a document that the Judiciary can add or subtract from is frightening.
The fact that a good portion of Americans think he's right shows what liberal academics have done to the students in our school system.
That leaves us with the question of what do we do to Justices who have unconstitutionally changed our Constitution?