A U.S. district judge in San Francisco today overturned a law supported by vast majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. The "unconstitutional" legislation is the ban on partial birth abortions. "The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," opined Judge Phyllis Hamilton.

But where, exactly, in the Constitution does it say that women have the right to abortions, let alone the right to terminate the lives of fully-formed babies? At the time of Roe v. Wade, all fifty states had prohibitions on abortion. Did every state misinterpret the law?

No, banning abortion is completely consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't mention the procedure, or even a "right to privacy" on which much of abortion law is based. No one even questioned the constitutionality of prohibitions on abortion from 1821, when the first state law targeting abortion appeared on the books, to 1973, when seven judges decided to make law. And that is what unelected Phyllis Hamilton did today, make law. She usurped the power entrusted to elected officials and decided that a democracy of one--her--knew what's best for the rest.

In a perfect world, Ms. Hamilton would be immediately impeached for undermining democracy and exercising powers not granted to her. Unfortunately, this won't happen. What can and should happen is for people to wake up to what kind of jurists John Kerry will stack our judicial system with if he becomes President.

Wait, does anyone actually get pregnant in San Francisco?