The most dangerous thing about Roe V wade is that the SC created a concept (privacy) that did not exist in the orginal constitution in order to base its ruiling on.
If one has the right to be secure in their person, papers, and effects from government intrusion and investigation except under certain circumstances, why do you think the concept of privacy does not exist in the Constitution? And why do you think that if something doesn't exist in the Constitution, we don't have it?
(1) A declaration that life begins at conception (or at least implantation... I prefer the former).
(2) Right to Privacy is not superior to the Right of Life.
Essentially, it must be declared and affirmed that once a conception happens, a Legal Responsibility is entered into by the parents-to-be... in fact, the couple are, by all realities, already parents and must legally act in that way to support the life of the baby.
You can still have your Right to Privacy... right up until you undertake the actions that lead to the creation of another life. Then Privacy MUST yield to Responsibility.
Gee, that requires quite a change in thinking, eh? Can this SCOTUS go that far?
I believe the purpose of the constitution is to protect us from the overstepping of the federal government not the state government. The states used the constitution to create a federal government with limited powers and with certain resrictions on its ability to infringe on our rights.
The issue of privacy is one that should be left to the states.
Nice try, mv, but you are misrepresenting the wording and intent of the 4th. Here it is --
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Clearly, the 4th applies only to unreasonable government scrutiny and government confiscation of physical objects, ie. bodies, buildings and possessions. A state anti-abortion law does not contemplate such intrusion. It calls for neither the "search" nor the "seizure" of you or of anything you own or reside in.
Such a statute would merely prohibit certain behavior, namely, the killing of an innocent, developing human being who resides in the safety of the womb and who poses no threat to the health and safety of anybody else. The state is not laying hands on you or on any part of you. You are not being detained or imprisoned or immobilized. You are not being subjected to a pat-down or a body cavity search or x-ray. You are simply being told that you may not kill innocent human life at any stage of development.
_____________________________________________________________
"And why do you think that if something doesn't exist in the Constitution, we don't have it?"
Good point, mv. The 10th recognizes that all rights not specifically set aside for the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. The people's representatives in state legislatures are, however, at liberty to enact any prohibitions they please, so long as those statutes do not abrogate constitutional provisions. And the people themselves may do likewise, through the ballot process.