I am sure that Democrats for Life represents a minority political opinion, but it is an opinion I am partial to and a position that has a certain resonance once it is articulated.

I really can’t get too worked up against most political opponents, left or right. I am not a good hater. Granted, some people are beyond the pale, but most aren’t.

Whether a religious doctrine is irrelevant or not depends on the doctrine and the context. For example, some people held that slavery is unacceptable on religious grounds, even to the point of practicing civil disobedience in the form of the Underground Railroad. That was a clearly articulated position by some churches prior to the Civil War, when the supreme law of the land favored the other side. Today we see those religionists who worked against slavery as having gotten the core issue right. Today someone might hold that their religion requires respect for the environment. Such beliefs may be widely held and not incompatible with the Constitution. The Constitution recognizes that some questions are political and to be decided by representative democracy. Ultimately, no law can be sustained that is not to some extent backed by a general consensus in society. It need not be a question of a simple majority, but as a practical matter, laws against murder, theft, etc. work because as a whole, society agrees these are unacceptable practices. Issues only reach the Supreme Court when the answers are not obvious and where rights collide. The Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of abortion, but the Court opinions continue to evolve. Whether Roe v. Wade will one day be overturned, I cannot predict. I would say the odds are against it in the foreseeable future. It also might be bad for the national political fortunes for the right wing if it was overturned, as it could force them to face a different set of legislative issues.

One could hold to a purely libertarian position. While I respect such a position, I am not persuaded that our Constitution requires pure libertarianism.

While I am in favor some basic rights all living persons (not just citizens), there remain the questions of when does life start and what happens when rights conflict, in the case the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn. I am not prepared to say that society, i.e., the state, has no legitimate interest in protecting the unborn, particularly as the unborn near full term. Roe v. Wade recognized this.

What I hope is that society can discuss these issues in a civil manner and recognize the arguments on the other side may be sincerely and reasonably held. The fundamentalists who bother me the most are those who cannot understand how any reasonable person could possibly believe differently than they do. Such an attitude results in the demonizing of one’s opponents. There may be times, e.g. Germany in the thirties, when one side really is demonic. I don’t see this as such a case.

As a Constitutional Scholar, should it not be politically irrelevant what or how many Americans believe concerning some religious doctrine?

Certainly, you are not trying to argue that a majority either way, should subordinate the rights of living US citizens?

I can further assure you there are more abortion-hating pro-choice Christians than Democrats for Life.

What a wonderful world it would be if it were NOT a political litmus test for either party, but rather a universal social cause to reduce abortion. I think everyone coule get behind that.

Has anyone asked this question on a survey;

Do you like or dislike abortion?

People like Okelberry are completely deaf on this issue. Anytime you attack them for voting based on this issue, they assume you disagree with their position on life.

One more time, its not about life, its about government vs choice.

There is, however, a group called Democrats for Life. Part of their platform is helping and supporting pregnant women.