One can read a ruling and see how many hoops the justices jumped through to get to a particular decision. Let me lead by saying I'm a pro choice person, and ho

One can read a ruling and see how many hoops the justices jumped through to get to a particular decision. Let me lead by saying I'm a pro choice person, and hope federal legislation is passed protecting abortion in all 50 states: Roe V. Wade is a good example. The justices didn't find any mention of "abortion", any description of abortion, or any medical procedure whatsoever in the constitution, or any mention of "trimesters". Yet they found by using a combination of no less than 5 amendments, that it in fact was protected, and then the supreme court decided exactly how long into a pregnancy abortion could be banned. They probably had consistent logic in what they said technically, but it strained credulity too much to believe they actually thought the constitution, in the text as it was written, protected a right to abortion. Would you agree the sword cuts both ways with regards to the statement: > I don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact.