Arguing the Unconstitutionality of Kamala Harris’s Stance on Abortion Rights

By Marla Fernandez, Constitutional Advocate and Writer

Kamala Harris’s staunch support for abortion rights has been a focal point of her political agenda, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. While she and her supporters may view this stance as essential for protecting women’s reproductive rights, it is essential to examine why her position on abortion is unconstitutional and detrimental to the principles upon which our nation was founded.

Argument 1: The Sanctity of Life:
The fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution is the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion directly contradicts the idea of protecting life, as it allows for the termination of innocent human lives. The Constitution guarantees the right to life, and Harris’s support for unrestricted abortion rights undermines this essential principle.

Argument 2: The Right to Equal Protection:
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution ensures that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By advocating for abortion rights, Harris effectively endorses the unequal protection of the unborn, denying them the most basic right – the right to life – enjoyed by all other citizens.

Argument 3: The Role of the States:
Harris’s stance on abortion interferes with the constitutional authority of individual states. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Abortion should be a matter left to the states to regulate according to the preferences and values of their citizens. Harris’s support for a one-size-fits-all approach to abortion infringes upon the sovereignty of individual states.

Argument 4: The Unsettled Legal Landscape:
The issue of abortion remains constitutionally unsettled, as it hinges on the question of when life begins. By promoting abortion as a fundamental right, Harris disregards the fact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade itself was controversial and divisive. Constitutional questions surrounding abortion should be resolved through rigorous legal and legislative processes, not through the imposition of one-sided ideologies.

Argument 5: Ignoring Alternatives:
Harris’s unwavering support for abortion rights overlooks the possibility of pursuing alternative solutions to unplanned pregnancies, such as adoption or comprehensive sexual education. Encouraging a culture that promotes life-affirming options is not only constitutionally sound but also aligns with the values of compassion and empathy.

Conclusion:
While Kamala Harris and her supporters may champion her stance on abortion rights, it is crucial to recognize that this position raises significant constitutional concerns. Protecting the right to life, ensuring equal protection under the law, respecting state sovereignty, and addressing unsettled legal questions are all crucial aspects of the constitutional debate surrounding abortion. A more balanced and nuanced approach that respects the Constitution’s principles and the diversity of perspectives on this issue is essential for constructive dialogue and policymaking.