Replies

I wrote this post earlier. Seems to fit in here. Hindsight's 20-20. I'm only expressing this view in hindsight. The one time I had a bad feeling about this election was when Terrell was asked by Tim Russert if she'd support a constitutional amendment banning abortion. After ducking once or twice( a bad sign right there she said she would. I could see the minds of the pro choice women I know hearing that and saying "I'm pro-choice but I'm busy saturday." to "Who does she think she is.When's the runoff."
Policically and ethically this(editted by someone who could reduce it to a soundbyte)would have been a better answer.

"If I were Governor of Louisiana I would sign a complete ban on abortion. If I were a Louisiana legislator I would vote for a ban on abortion. As a U.S. Senator I would not support a constitutional amendment for the same reason I would oppose Roe v. Wade. The spirit of the Constitution is declared in the Declaration of Independence that government obtains its authority by the consent of the governed. The letter of the Constitution says that powers not specifically given to the Federal Government in the Constitution are given to the States. Roe v. Wade violates both. Abortion was made the virtually irreversible law of the land by people appointed to office. Those opposing it were given recourse to an amendment process hurdled 17 times sinse the bill of rights. One would have to contort into a pretzel to interpret that the Constitution says anything one way or the other aboutalmost any Federal authority over abortion.
The nation remains profoundly divided over abortion. Roe v. Wade disenfranchised opponents of abortion , radicalized debate and eroded civil discourse. An abortion amendment would continue that process
As much as I morally oppose it, I believe I serve both my pro-life stance and my constituents by opposing abortion where the Federal Government has a role(e.g.Federal funding,minors across state lines and working to make abortion an issue which is determined in the State legislatures.

p.s.-Norm Coleman’s handling of the in his debate with Mondale was a model of a reasonable pro-life stance.

FINAL NUMBERS.. 3,912 of 3,912 precincts reporting
643,359 52% Mary Landrieu [D]
603,293 48% Suzanne Haik Terrell [R]
Terrell was right of W on the abortion issue ...and kept shifting her position......not a smart move..............

Plus most Americans want the right to abortion if the person is raped or in a incest situation..her position looked right of the center for majority of the American people who are pro-life.............. Plus non-Catholics are for birth Control...so she was not on the majority position there too... ( bottom line Terrell was not polished..she should have paid attention to how W, Coleman , Talent .etc deal with the abortion issue ...and show some compassion )

America evenutally decided that preventing human lives from being regarded as chattel was worth a Constitutional Amendment (after about 600,000 lives, plus the lives and deaths of all the slaves, were spent on the matter).

America should also decide that preventing human lives from being prematurely ended is worth a Constitutional Amendment (after XX-million lives are spent on the matter).

Of course, the national document even more critical and foundational to our nation than the Constitution, declares our right to life, but that is being ignored.

The Constitution was developed by Us, the People. The People of the United States of America are the final earthly authority on the matter of our governance. The Constitution is our tool for arranging this; so it was designed and authored by Us.

Our principles of popular sovereignty might even require us some day to change the whole thing around, though that would be a shame. (But that's what Amendment II alludes to.) Amendment X is to be interpreted within the structure and perspective of all of the above.