Suppose we do elect a pro-life president, he appoints the next Supreme Court justice and the land's highest court overturns the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. What then? The abortion debate goes back to the states and is decided on a state by state basis? Will America become a land where only half its unborn citizens have a right to life?
The American Civil War determined that we could not remain a nation half slave and half free and the same could be argued of the right to life. Simply overturning Roe V. Wade won't end the abortion battle, it will only change the landscape of the battlefield. In my view, the key to ending or significantly reducing abortion in America may lie in the Constitution itself. The 14th amendment clearly states that no State may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Thus, according to one possible interpretation of the Constitution, NO abortions should be performed in this country without the unborn child having some sort of legal process in which their interests are taken into account. Thus, if the courts were to uphold the due process rights of the unborn, hearings would be required to determine whether the mother's interest in aborting the child outweighs the child's fundamental right to life, potentially reducing the number of abortions performed each year significantly below current statistics.
Such hearings need not require a full court trial, but could be dealt with by a master or appointee of the court, as many other family matters are currently handled. But the Constitution, if so interpreted, would be clear: no unborn child should have his life terminated without full legal recourse and a duly executed, case by case legal process which weighs the interests of all parties concerned; a "due process" that was denied when the last 53 million children were put to death in America's abortuaries.