In other words, you don’t know. You just believe it because you so badly want it to be true.
Ahem
You still haven't answered
my question.
Simply enough, there is not only
nothing in the Constitution which says mothers have the right to murder their babies in utero,
there is
nothing in the supporting writings about the Constitution so much as implying such a 'right'.
It is of whole cloth, cut from the black robes of five justices. Not one damned thing Constitutional about it.
However, the Founders wrote often of the sanctity of Life, especially the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....but nowhere did they say you could murder innocents along the way. In fact, they went to great extremes to protect the innocent, willing to suffer, as it were, to let guilty parties go free rather than hang one innocent person.
How any group of judges, acting on the erroneous (or falsified) material presented by a law clerk, could find in perfect contravention to those stated philosophies that anyone had a right to murder babies in utero defies anything approaching even legal logic.
By the selfsame token, there was a great deal of discussion about arms, the right to keep and bear them, spelled out in the Federalist and elsewhere, for the purpose of securing the State against invasion, against tyranny, for securing the safety of self, family, property, and community. The groundwork is well laid, and the Amendment clear, that the Right
of The People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
If that Right is indeed of the People (as stated), it should not pass from them when they cross any boundary within the United States.
To imply that the States, who ratified or signed on to the compact between the People and the Federal Government need not abide by that compact, is disingenuous. Shall they also only abide only by odd numbered articles on odd numbered days, and even numbered ones on even numbered days, or perhaps leave the choice to lot, or the roll of dice?
Abide by the agreement or not, in or out, half measures do not a nation make.
If upon entering statehood, a state decided to subvert the very nature of our country, what purpose other than to suck the benefits from the rest while not affording such to their own citizens?
In reality, after the 17th Amendment, the States lost much of their representation in Congress, while bribes of funding undercut much of the rest, but that is another discussion.