[lehighguy]

People also didn't have the ability to kill a fetus back then. You can't read a pro-abortion rights clause into the constitution when the practice was not even possible at the time of authoring.

Technological changes bring about situations that did not exist at the time of authoring, and thus are not addressed. Abortion is one, but I imagine there will be a great deal many more as technology advances in the next century that will bring about situations not addressed in our constitution.

Since these situations are not addressed specifically in the constitution, nor through extensive precedent, the court would do best to show restraint in making profound constitutional decisions.

We're going to have to deal with a lot of new questions going foward. Should cloning be allowed, is a clone alive, is artificial intelligence alive, how do we govern genetic modification. Who knows what else? The question before us is who will make these decisions. Should the court make these decisions or should elected legislaters?

Personally, I'd like to have some input on those questions. I'm sure you would too. And while the courts ruling on abortion may favor you now, imagine if instead of judicial conservatives like scalia the court was packed with political conservatives. They could outlaw abortion in all 50 states with a single ruling, and they wouldn't need to back it up with anything other then thier own personal believes. Future courts may disagree with you on the issues above, and you will have no recourse against them.

Originalism means that on issues where the constitution is clear (death penalty, eminient domain, civil liberties, and free speech were all around back then) you try to remain true to that original interpretation. You update it as best you can for technological changes (internet journalism is protected just like print journalism), but some situtaions are simply not addressed by the constitution. When those arise the court should show restraint.