In 1973, a case played out before the U.S. Supreme Court that was to become a landmark decision on abortion. In Roe vs. Wade, the justices determined that a right to privacy offered under the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause extended to the decision by a woman to have an abortion. Essentially, they established through that decision that for every individual, a level of personal privacy exists into which the government may not intrude.
Conservatives and others who maintain a belief in the "right to life" have attempted to overturn the decision ever since, but from a biblical sense, rather than a constitutional one. I'm very sure I won't be very popular with my conservative brethren when I say this approach is a grave mistake for two very good reasons:
1) While I am a devout Christian, there is no constitutional basis for adopting biblical or Christian moral principles into our laws. Our laws must serve all of the people, all of the time, to the extent that this is possible. While the Ten Commandments provide a secular and historical example as some of the very first written laws, their content of a nonsecular nature must be discarded. For that reason, when the Bible and the Constitution are at odds, the Constitution must prevail.
2) The individual privacy established by the decision protects us all and has applications far beyond that of a woman's right to an abortion. It should, and I believe eventually will, eventually apply to gay marriage, as well as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and any other related issues.
Personally, I believe the right to marry who you wish and experience all the legal rights and privileges thereof should certainly be covered under Due Process, since gender discrimination is specifically prohibited. I would also include the right to be not be forced into buying something you don't want, in the attempt to sustain a program which is, according to the Congressional Budget Office in it's most recent statement, incapable of either lowering medical costs or reducing the deficit.
From my perspective, any law which forces citizens to act directly in conflict with the canon of the religion of their choice should also be considered for coverage under the Due Process clause.
While as a Christian I abhor the practice of abortion, I also feel strongly that it's not my place or the place of government to dictate the path of others, and I find it unfortunate that many on the right choose to impose a Biblical test on a document that was based not on Judeo/Christian principles, but on the principles of Natural Law as proposed by John Locke.
While the majority of our citizens are indeed Christians, we are not a Christian nation but a nation composed of many different races, creeds and religions, unified under the founders' concept that all are created equal and are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The insistence of a biblical test also undermines our credibility in the minds of those on the left and makes it much easier for them to label us as religious fanatics.
If you like to write about U.S. politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition for a chance to win semi-monthly $250 prizes and earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize to be awarded after the November election.