In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 12:21:30 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Of course, I suppose you value the barely
potential life of a damaged fetus vs. that of a healthy woman.

Since you raise the question, Jonathan, my views are that:

1. The federal Constitution was never intended to create federally protected
rights beyond those specifically enumerated. Protection of rights not
specifically enumerated was left to the States and to the political process.

Not true. But there's no point arguing.

2. More particularly, the "discovery" of new rights hiding in the
"penumbrae" of the 13th through 15th Amendments is a judicial invention not
sanctioned by the Constitution.

Seems to be holding its own so far.

3. Since Roe v. Wade is based on one of those judicially "discovered"
rights-- a so-called right to privacy-- the case was wrongly decided.

Same as 2.

4. Under the Constitution the power to regulate abortion properly resides in
the States, and

Except that's not the law is it?

5. As a matter of policy the States should refrain entirely from exercising
that power to regulate abortion, leaving the matter to the moral judgment of
patient and doctor.

Except that it isn't left to the moral judgement of either. It's left
to the moral judgement of the States, which is flawed, and thus the
Supremos stepped in.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."