Abortion and Constitutional Violations

This article came from "The New York Times." It had a noticeable liberal bias, but presented its information and evidence accessibly, and the bias didn't get in the way of the article.

The article illustrated the movements against abortion-access in the past three years and attributed a lot of the pro-life momentum to state legislation. The article argued that the legislation has, in many cases, violated the terms set in Roe v. Wade. The article concluded with a statement from Jennifer Dalven, the director of the reproductive freedom project at the American Civil Liberties Union, that suggested that state policies reflect policies set up prior to Roe v. Wade. 

First of all, I don't want this post to turn into an abortion debate. My views on abortion match those defined by the LDS church, which can be found here. I am perfectly fine talking about what I believe in regards to abortion and why, but I don't feel that A) the comments section of my blog is the best place to discuss it and B) that any ensuing debate with regards to abortion will be productive. 

The first thing that I want to address is the states rights versus federal power conflict that is prevalent in this issue. A basis for federal intervention in this issue is the idea that reproductive rights are universal and shouldn't fluctuate from state to state. In contrast, a basis for state control in this issue relies heavily on the heterogeneous set of morals within our country. Utahans tend to view abortion differently than, say, New Yorkers. I understand that there are more than just these two arguments when it comes to the States v. Fed element of abortion, and would love some comments on them. 

The second thing that this article made me think of was the way we view the Constitution and the violation thereof. Forgive the nasty generalization that is about to follow. Americans, as a whole, have shown a certain degree of tolerance for violations of the constitution. Ex: The Emancipation Proclamation was arguably a pretty flagrant violation of the Presidential Powers defined by the Constitution. That being said, many of Lincoln's contemporaries as well as a majority of present-day Americans view the document as one of the most important in American history. The Emancipation Proclamation actually affirmed the ultimate goal of the Constitution, which is to ". . . secure the Blessings of Liberty . . . ." So, Americans tend to accept Constitutional violations that they see as catalysts of this goal. 

I think the biggest complications in the issue of abortion come when Americans are inevitably forced to reconcile both their moral views as wells as their personal degree of tolerance for Constitutional violations. For example, someone who believes that the life of the fetus begins at fertilization might be in favor of violating the terms defined by Roe v. Wade because they see the violation as a further assurance of the fetus's right to life. Someone who believes that the life of the fetus begins at fertilization but doesn't have any degree of tolerance for Constitutional violations might be against legislation that would violate the terms of Roe v. Wade, and would instead advocate judicial review of the 1973 decision in hopes that the ruling might change. I haven't even included the opinions that someone who was Pro-Choice might have. 

Once again, I don't want to have a moral debate on abortion, but would love comments about States versus Fed, Constitutional violations, and so forth. Thanks.