Obama is so intent on supporting the Supreme Court's creation of new rights (which it isn't allowed to do) that he (along with all Democrats and some Republicans) ignores women's rights to know the full truth in many published scientific studies about how abortion can and does harm us personally.
The Constitution does not have "a right to privacy in it", nor do the Declaration, Federalist Papers or Amendments.
However, the Supreme Court did create such a right, even though they're not allowed to.
Only a two-thirds majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate and also 75% (or 38) of the states can do that. Via amendments.
And Congress, on its own, has always had the right to prevent the Supreme Court from overstepping its bounds, yet they've always refused to do so.
"In a line of decisions, however, . . . the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution...This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
"The Court has recognized." "As we feel it is." "Is broad enough." The Court's makeup is what determined this "recognition," this "feeling," this permissive allowance for the "broad enough" definition. Because the Supreme Court also did not--could not then--answer the question "When does human life begin?", it decided that there was no human life whose inalienable right to life was being violated by abortion, despite the scientific facts now long-established by at least 9 respected embryologists, as many med-school textbooks and The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryological Development.
In other words, it was the Court's decision, not an actual Constitutional right.
The Supreme Court established the so-called "right to privacy." They are not supposed to establish rights. Period.
That is the sole purview of the Constitution and after that, only is to be done through the Amendment process.
Instead we have nine individual people creating rights and changing the Constitution instead of a two-thirds majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate and also 75% (or 38) of the states.
That's a HUGE difference. This is why the derogatory label "activist judges" fits, and did at least as far back as Roe v. Wade. It now includes the judges who blocked the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act as well as those who demand the litmus test exemplified by the Senate Judiciary Committee's devious behavior.
(Seriously. Go read that last link about the memos from the files of Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats that made their way into the hands of the media.)
For some background, John Kerry encouraged this flaunting of the U.S. Constitution: he said on national TV in one of his Presidential debates that he would only pick Supreme Court justices who'd vote in favor of the original Roe v. Wade decision. Obama supports this too, though he won't make the same mistake Kerry did and thus tells you all that he does not support a litmus test.
It's worth repeating: nine people, versus 290 Congressmen, about 67 Senators, and the state legislatures of 38 states.
I find it fascinating that those objecting the most to the power given to the Federal Government under such things as The Patriot Act, are actually unaware of the vast "benefits" they enjoy as a result of the rampant expansion of federal power that occurred prior to Roe v. Wade but was exemplified by that decision:
"The Supreme Court gained dominance through its misuse of the Fourteenth Amendment...It was the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, which, as construed by the Supreme Court, so radically changed the division of powers [among the three branches of U.S. government], that it is fairly described as the 'second Constitution.'...[And t]he Supreme Court could not have achieved dominance if Congress had not acquiesced...'Only in this century did it begin to be commonplace to regard the justices of the Supreme Court as the 'guardians' of the Constitution, as though only they...had this charge...The Framers [of the Constitution] knew better."
Want proof of this?
"Congress has authority, under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, to remove a class of cases, such as those dealing with abortion or school prayer, from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and from the trial and appellate jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. If Congress did so, for example, that would not overrule Roe v. Wade. But state courts would be free to decide the issue themselves without fear of review by the Supreme Court."
So, Congress has had the power all along to remove the cases on abortion from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. They still have the power. They always have refused to exercise it.
[paraphrased/quoted from 35-year Constitutional lawyer and law professor at University of Notre Dame, Charles Rice, in his book The Winning Side: Questions on Living the Culture of Life]
Perhaps it's time (again) to write our Senators and Representatives, include the quotes above about Congress's ability to do what it's supposed to do (put a "check and balance" on the Supreme Court), and tell them we'd very much appreciate it if no more women would be so harmed by abortion and no more babies, too, thanks.
And remind them of that March 3, 2004 "Science, Technology, and Space Hearing" on "The Impact of Abortion on Women" that some Senators were supposed to be attending with the post-abortive women's testimonies on the harm they personally suffered, that we posted about here.
You see, those in Washington have been hearing sworn testimony and reading our letters for y e a r s from those of us who regret and have been harmed by our abortions.
All to no avail.