Infanticide now illegal in US

Actually as a matter of fact, the Constitution DOES have something to say on the matter. The 14th Amendment says that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". And of course there's that pesky problem of the 9th Amendment which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Funning how everybody tries to ignore that one now.
So the question is, what exactly does 'liberty' mean? I'd highly recommend reading the book "The Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty", which makes clear that the concept of "liberty" means that the government must justify any attempt to intrude on liberty (in other words the freedom of the people is absolute unless the government can prove a compelling reason to intervene with approved Constitutional powers). Now I'm no genius, but freedom over one's own person and the freedom to make our own choices are certainly an essential part of any definition of liberty that has any real meaning. By the way, the author of the book (law professor Randy Barnett) is an originalist, not a believer in the living constitution, a member of the Federalist Society, and he's really done his homework on original intent). He also points out that judicial review (the power of judges/the courts) to invalidate laws WAS seen as a fundamental part of judicial power-and was in fact taken for granted, hence why it was not explicitly spelled out in Article III. People today forget constantly that the USA is NOT a democracy, it is a Republic-a Democratic republic but the two are not synonymouse with each other. Several elements of the design of our system were deliberately anti-majoritarian (several of our Founders can be quoted on the dangers of pure majoritarian rule). I think that there are plenty of examples of judicial overreach but I think most are simply disgruntled plaintiffs or defendents bitching that they lost. If a law is in fact unconstitutional the court has an obligation to strike it down. If a court must become "activist" to protect liberties from a hyperactive legislature or retrain a hyperactive President from overstepping his bounds than I say that activism is a good thing. Of course if Congress actually passed Constitutional laws or if the President veteoed laws that were unconstitutional the Supreme Court wouldn't make the final call. I also see it as a great problem that the courts are addressing these issues but perhaps it's because so many people have become too fed up with the legislative process-after all, why deliberate issues or lobby someone on Capitol Hill when litigation is so much easier-and readily available? Everyone tries to settle disputes through the courts when other routes fail. This IS a problem in America today but the answer is that we need restored trust in the legislative process. If Congress would address these issues head on and would make it clear to the Court that judicial review was to be reserved for extreme cases than a lot of this mess could be avoided (if Congress would stop passing vague laws or ducking tough questions that might help too). But nobody really gets the Constitution anymore. Perhaps a nationwide civics lesson is in order. But when it comes to abortion, the issue should really boil down to human life. If the unborn are human beings than life trumps liberty. This is where the real question lies. The problem is not that the word 'abortion' does not appear in the Constitution, nor 'right to privacy'. They shouldn't have to.

steveintheknow, What you're forgetting is that the decision -- that this particular kind of abortion should be a Federal crime -- was made by the United States Congress. (Including, by the way, the vote of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and with no opposition from grandstanding John Edwards.) The Supreme Court didn't consider whether that was the right determination by Congress. Their only proper role is consider whether Congress is entitled to make it. Can you point to a provision of the Constitution that says Congress is not so entitled?