Apparently they coached her to ask about abortion and she forgot so Malveux had to remind her what her question was. 

card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy

Notice how all the candidates tow the party line on this one (and friggin Dennis the Mennis unabashedly proclaims he will apply a litmus test).

"litmus test"  this you "goats".

v

and every knee will bow and every tongue confess...

Mr Balan,

I fail to understand the dubious "quotations" and use of the words "so-called" in relation to the right to privacy. Do you not believe in such a right? Does not the amendment against "UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE" have it's root in this "so called "right? If not, then WHY can't you be "unreasonably searched and seized"? I've long thought that conservatives shoot themselves in the foot with this specious argument. IF there is no right to privacy why is WIRETAPPING illegal?  That said, the fact that privacy is part of the constitution has NOTHING to do with the legality or illegality of ANY MEDICAL PROCEDURE! I mean, grown people tired of living are prohibited from using doctors to "kill themselves" right? So the "morality" of medicine is separate from "privacy". Privacy doesn't give one a blank check for anything that a doctor deems prudent. Only silly liberals would think that . The only question over abortion should be "Is the fetus a human being and if so, do we have the right to kill it?" Period. Privacy has nothing to do with it and never did. Even the Justice who wrote the opinion said that if the "personhood" of the fetus were established this would make the ruling "moot". Well, I'd suggest that new developements in fetal imaging, not to mention a better understanding of DNA, have shown conclusively that what developes in the womb is indeed human and should not be slaughtered and there need not be efforts to disparage "privacy". Why aren't medical records released to the public? Why are court records sealed? Honestly, think about some of your "knee jerk" conservatism and you'll be better for it. BTW before some tard attacks me as a "troll" , I'm more conservative than ALL OF YOU. I left the republican party because they were too stupid and too cowardly to defeat their enemies and becoming too GAY and too LIBERAL. Harriet Myers, Dubai Ports, Gays teaching school kids that orgies are okay and so is drug use, all happened under the watch of supposedly conservative George Bush. And what's he done in relation to that "marriage" amendment anyway? Nothing you say? Thought so. 

NOT fooled by fake christians and sodomite friendly republicans. Not fooled at all.

If you ever want to know the rock-bottom difference between liberals and conservatives, ask them about “substantive due process.” The short explanation of substantive due process is that human beings have fundamental rights and liberties, and that no law should ever violate them. We all agree with that noble sentiment.

• However, it turns out that democracy has a weakness. Is majority rule the only authority of law?
• If so, in a “nation” of two wolves and one sheep, the majority could legally eat the minority. How do you protect minorities (racial, sexual, religious, et al) from being overwhelmed?
• You might be willing to trust the good sense of the majority, but that’s why slavery was such an obstacle in American law. After all, slavery was a moral abomination … but despite that, it was legal. Slavery was a case where the majority enslaved the minority, and democracy didn’t prevent it.

Over time, liberals came to see the liberty clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendment as the way to protect minorities. Liberals claim that these clauses give judges the power to strike down any law they feel violates fundamental liberties, no matter what the text of the law says. It gives judges the power to decide whether laws should have been passed in the first place. It’s a veto over the law itself.

• Soon, liberals declared every opposition to every minority desire as “oppression,” and used substantive due process to “protect” minorities.
• The Democrats are now the collection of all minorities, who feel that the Democrats protect them. (Republicans call it exploiting them, but that’s our view.)

Why are we so polarized? It’s not the war, or social issues. Those are symptoms, not the cause. It’s because the collection of minorities, taken together, now outnumbers the traditional majority. Conservatives are now the minority, but the veto power is still firmly in the hands of the liberals.

I’ll argue that substantive due process was a mistake from the beginning, and the liberal misinterpretation of it is more than a mistake. It’s a tragedy. It offends reason. At the very least, it’s an attempt to make law foolproof, which is a fool’s errand. Note how the Democrats will fight to the death to preserve substantive due process. It’s what holds their party together. Without it, they have nothing to offer minorities. It’s their reason for life. And you know what’s fascinating? Not a one of them can explain it.