Indian Country Today: South Dakota's Republican senator discusses issues
Thank for the response.
I think what is missing from the debate about Roe is the key underpinning. I'm no constitutional scholar, and I'm sure you have much more schooling on matters such as these, but the way a lot of people see Roe is not so much as a "right to an abortion" as a constitutional right, but rather the right of individuals to have the government stay out of personal decisions such as an abortion.
The one thing that has always bothered me in the right's approach to this issue is that they (generally) believe the decision to terminate pregnancy is one that is come to easily. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obviously there are no statistics or research on matters such as these, but I would venture to say that the number of women who contemplate terminating their pregnancy and reach a different conclusion is a number much much greater than the number of abortions performed in the state.
I would like to point out, and I think you misinterpreted what I was saying, that I don't believe disagreeing with Roe is wingnuttery in and of itself. Obviously we are a diverse enough society to allow disagreement on such matters. But to say there is no constitutional underpinning to the Roe decision is to say there is no right to privacy. Certainly there is a faction on the right that believes this, but this faction is, shall we say, knee-deep in wingnuttery. If the right wants to take this approach to the overturning the Roe decision, I think we are headed down a slipperly slope.
I would add that as this case winds its way across the federal courts system, if the wacky right is going to use the "due process" clause to protect the "lives" of the unborn, they are also headed down a slipperly slope. The question becomes: where do the rights of the unborn start and begin? I think once you start applying the due process clause there is another set of ramifications. I'm not sure this is specifically what you refer to when you say you think it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to "amend" the constitution in favor of the rights of the unborn, but I think we're generally on the same page in this regard.
Bottom line for most Americans, I believe: the "state" needs to stay out of these personal decisions, and we have a right to keep the "state" out. The only way to trump this argument is to say the "unborn" have "rights" and as I've argued above, this is not a good road for our country to head down.
P.S. when are you guys going to open up comments on your site? And that's not a jab -- I think it would be a great thing for you guys to do.