Actually, there’s a method which would be much easier to achieve – have a majority of the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, or (much more likely) gut it like a fish, until it didn’t do anything but sit in the history books as the textbook definition of a dead article.

For example, if 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were Republican (i.e., the situation for ~three decades now), then even if two ‘defected’, that’d still leave a 5-justice GOP majority block.

As for ’stare decisis’, the Rhenquist/Scalia/Thomas court was notorious for being ‘originalist’, and not unduly bound by previous precendents. And after Bush v. Gore, it’s no longer honestly deniable that when five GOP justices *really* want something, there are no rules (how many other Supreme Court decisions state that they are not precedents?).

And the additon of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court hasn’t slowed down the ‘flexibility’ of the GOP block; we’re seeing the legal system be rewritten to suit Ordo Dei, in many areas – but not abortion.

Ah! So the only way to wrest abortion from the Supreme Court is to pass a constitutional amendment that is as ham-fisted and universal as the SCOTUS’s defacto constitutional amendment. The chances of that are effectively zero. The fact is that Americans are ambivalent about abortion. Thus, the ability to create a patchwork of laws regulating the abortion procedure, it’s practitioners, and the protections of a patients is what the People want and the only thing they will accept. What they think the patchwork should be varies as you move around the country. They’d be fairly restringing in Louisiana and they’d practically pay people to have the procedure in Massachusetts. You’d have as much chance to pass a constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion as you would passing such an amendment to outlaw handguns.

If resolving this issue with a constitutional amendment was so easy why didn’t the 7 SCOTUS justices suggest that in 1973?

No, it’s the justification for the feds preventing Kansas from banning abortion.

If you polled the public and asked them whether or not the Westboro Church should be allowed to protest at the funerals of US servicemen, I guarantee that the large majority would say either “no” or “no, but the Constitution gives them the right to Assemble and the right to Free Speech.” What Westboro does is despicable, but I don’t see anyone jumping to amend the Constitution.

The Federal Government should stay out of the bedrooms of its citizens, and stay out of the personal medical decisions between its citizens and their doctors, but so should the states.

But let’s look at the history of folks going and doing everything they can to get rid of a local tyrant… hasn’t that been the framing of *EVERY* invasion? “We’re going in there to liberate those people!”

Hell, isn’t that the justification for banning abortion? “We’re trying to keep people *ALIVE*!!!”

I’m getting over “intentions”.

When are men going to finally get it through their heads that women are human beings?