[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The opinion of the court was that a woman's right to an abortion was constitutionally supported based on a vague reading to the "right to privacy". The law concerning unreasonable searches was used to cover the right to abortion. So the same people who complain with the constitutional "right to bear arms" are the same who can justify abortion using the protection against unreasonable search without a warrant. That to me is the height of hypocrisy.

Think of the irony that the restrictions on abortion are tighter and more stringent now than prior to the ruling. If the Supreme court had simply argued that this is a state's rights issue what would have happened? Some states would have outlawed it, perhaps Texas would be in that category, hard to tell. Some states would have put in restrictions and regulations, probably NY and California would be in that category. Some states would have legalized it completely, perhaps Nevada, etc. But you would have taken the rug out from any who would protest. Against abortion, move to where it is illegal. For abortion, what is the big issue, if you don't want to move simply go out of state when necessary.

Not only would this have put a stop to most protests, it would have also eliminated it from the discourse in national politics. Congressmen, Senators and presidents would not need to say anything more than "that is a state's right issue". As for local politicians it could easily have become a referendum issue, just like legalizing Pot or some other topic.

So instead of blaming Evangelicals why not look in the mirror? The man in the mirror is the only one you have authority to change. Blaming Evangelicals suggest to me you aren't really serious about a solution.

Put down the crack pipe man. I didn't blame Evangelicals for anything. It was a statement of putative fact. I read it in several periodicals including the WSJ.