I disagree. I would happily risk a national referendum on the matter.
Which method results in a quicker opening up of debate on this matter, is what I'm thinking: overturning Roe v. Wade and opening up the debate on a local level, or going straight for a Constitutional amendment?
Neither, actually. We are a nation of laws, not men. Debate is of little use. The law has been written since our very defining moment. Enforce the law.
The status quo in what sense? The return to abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade?
No. I am referring to the "status quo" of overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing Life to return to the states. That was the objective of he Pro-Life movement for nearly 30 years, and was an utter failure. The reason for that failure is the nature of the argument.
And what method are you suggesting?
I am not a strict advocate of a Constitutional amendment per se. What I do require is a real and concerted effort to return the matter of Life where it belongs~ That being it's honored place above the courts of men, which is what, in fact, the Constitution guarantees and declares. It is a document of limitations, and is worthless unless those limitations are rigidly enforced.
The proper defense of Life can come from many directions- An Act in Congress would be sufficient (such an act was offered by Duncan Hunter every year)... Impeaching judges (including supreme court justices) who would legislate from the bench... The return of the proper appointment of senators by the states so that the states themselves can better express their will upon the federal government...
All roads lead to the necessity of electing proper statesmen; men dedicated to the restoration of, very proper use of, and enforcement of, the U.S Constitution and it's resulting laws.
Well said.