We all agree that the a woman has a Constitutional Right to have an abortion?

Question

So how can anybody vote for Presidential candidate who promises to violate their Oath of Office by actively trying to deny that woman her Constitutional Rights ?

Judging from your good answers thus far there seems to be a valid intellectual question as to whether or not that right does in fact exist in the Constitution . The US Supreme Court has judged that it does exist .
The President of course in his Oath of Office promises "to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States " Is the President allowed to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he wants to preserve protect and defend and which parts he doesn't or is it an all or nothing situation ?

Answer 1

In response to your additional notes comments:

Don't listen to the uneducated... read the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade. The bottomline that the S. Court ruled on was from the 1st Amd... that a woman had a right of privacy over what happens to her body. The ruling actually goes on to explain that the question of whether or not a fertilized embryo was a life or not was irrelevant because it was not an independent life and once again, because a woman had a right of privacy to make the decision.

So, your original question was actually on target. It amazes me how the Republicans claim to be so patriotice and love America, etc... yet, they constantly fight against what this great nation's courts have ruled on.

I am a liberal and when ppl ask me why, I say because I believe in the constitution COMPLETELY... not just portions of it here and there that I agree with.

Answer 2

I personally agree that women should have the right to an abortion. And, I agree with the reasoning of the majority in Roe v. Wade regarding the State's interest in a fetus as a human being accruing at some unspecified point in its development, at least on a logical level. But the plain, hard fact is that Roe v. Wade is not good Constitutional law. The court "found" a woman's right to privacy. The rationale was that such a right can be found in the "penumbra" of the other enumerated rights. That's a fancy way of saying, "well they didn't come right out and say it, but we can see where they were headed." I think that's poor jurisprudence, and a reckless way to rule from the bench. So, summing up...no. We don't all agree that a woman has a Constitutional right to have an abortion.

Answer 3

There is not a specific phrase in the Constitution that guarantees the woman the right to have an abortion. Because the Framers could not possibly forsee the issues of present day America, the Constitution has many vague nuances. It is a living document that is supposed to adapt itself to modern situations as they arise. However, Amendment 10 states that rights not specifically delineated in the Constitution are left up to the people- generally American voters. The issue of abortion is so personal that government and ultra-conservatives should not be able to make such an individual decision. Therefore, a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body and the president should be diligent in upholding such an individual right.

Answer 4

Actually NO, I do not agree that there is a Constitutional right. See Congress was given the Enumerated Powers, outlined in the Constitution. After that, if the power was not expressly written therein, the authority for determining it was supposed to go to the States. Beautifully and I think as some kind of practical joke, the Founding Fathers threw in the Interstate Commerce Clause. This of course being the clause that Congress uses consistently, over and over to enforce its laws on the states who may differ in opinion.
Now, that being said, I am not of the mindset that abortion should be illegal. Nor am I of the mindset that it is a Constitutional Right. This is a discussion that Constitutionally should have be left to the individual states, but because it is done federally, it is law in every state.

Answer 5

It's a long document that we had to study in school back home in Calais., Fr. I can only hope that by the time I get back to New York for work next year that a goodhearted and just person will be chosen as president. As a non-citizen and sometimes resident of the US I agree that all mankind are crated equal and that includes women.
But when/until scientists have developed the male pregnancy and men can carry babies to term let us see how they deal with this. A man may be caught off guard by an unexpected pregnancy and forced to carry to term, deliver then into poverty because the dead beat mom took off. Forced to work 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet and when you cannot the department of family services takes your kid and shoves them into the already overcrowded welfare system where it is more likely they will be abused by foster parents just looking to collect checks.
Sure it is easy to SAY there are plenty of families out there who want to adopt but the truth is there are way too many hoops for legitimate perspective parents to jump through and that is why we have so many US parents coming to the Ukraine to adopt. That leaves an awful lot of US kids waiting and waiting for the future that is bleak and riddled with violence and sorrow.

If a pregnancy was an accident and caught early enough and YOU know in your heart and situation that you would not be able to care for that child and this world will essentially turn its back on them why bring them into it?
as The District Court held that thefundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment, so it should be understood that a man can hit and kill a pedestrian and simply get a ticket for striking a person in the roadway but so many want to put a woman in jail for choosing not to have a child?
That is insane thinking

Answer 6

Rather, the legal argument for abortion rest in the nature of the limits of governing authority. There is no proscribed Constitutional "Right" to abortion, merely no right to impose a restriction against it.

Answer 7

I do agree. NO Man or Woman on the street, next door mom Or Dad has a right to make you do what you do not want to do. It is Your body and I guarantee that the candidate who has to nerve to stand up and proclaim Women as independent individuals to singular domain over their own self wins mine and sever million other votes!!!

Answer 8

I think that she is protected under that whole "pursuit of happiness, life, liberty, etc". The 1st &2nd trimester fetus isn't pursuing much of anything yet, as far as we can tell with available science.

Also, consider that some religions/cultures do not address or ban abortion. So the separation of church and state prohibits fundies from imposing their fringe church's view on this multireligious country.

Though no fan of abortion, to even have to have this discussion infuriates me. It infantilizes women and their ability to know if they have the support/safety to raise a child well. IE my friends who aborted were young, and were unloved, and had no cash. It was not an easy choice. It was the only one that they thought they had. Hmm, why is no one upset at slutty men who seduce young girls, knock them up, treat them bad, and dissappear?

Answer 9

A small portion of the nation does not agree. It is very vocal and active and wishes to inflict its point of view on all of us under penalty of law.
For many years many women have taken for granted the safety net of choice only to find out that it has be whittled down and made difficult by laws chipping away at that freedom and sign waving and picture taking fanatics at the doors of their gynecologists offices. They are one issue voters and they will vote for the worst possible candidates without a second thought as long as those candidates vow to end abortion rights.
The limitations are on accessibility in certain states the right to privacy is one that relates to medical conditions.
This is the only medical decision that is supposed to be made by the states.

Answer 10

well as much as I hate to admit it...

the first poster is right.

It's not a violation of oath of office to take steps to challenge a constitutional amenment, or any other legality for that matter...

The beauty of the constitution is that it can be challenged and changed if necessary.

I am pro-choice however.