Replies

But Roe v Wade should have been turned over in the courts already. Its the judicial legislating from the bench which is unconstitutional.

That someone disagrees with Roe v Wade does not justify government intrusion as a means of trying to undo or diminish the burden of that ruling.

I happen to think judicial activism is entirely constitutional. It was predicted during the debates on ratification:

They [the courts] will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution.
The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort.
The legislature must be controlled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controllable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.
The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states.
Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.
Antifederalist 80

In short, the problem is Article III. The problem is the supreme power of the national government. The problem is that while the three branches of the national government serve to check one branch's power over the other national branches, all three branches have, since 1789, worked steadily and consistently to enlarge the national sphere of power generally, at the expense of the states and the people.

In short, the Constitution is fatally flawed. But that does not justify, in my opinion, state government intrusion into the private dealings between a doctor and a patient.