Some constructionists claim to be above interpretation of the Constitution, preferring a strict translation of the original intent. Notwithstanding the fact that the law is filled with words such as "reasonable," which virtually beg a person to interpret, unless one holds regular communion with the dead, how is discerning intent, with respect to the Constitution at least, any different from interpreting law? The answer to this question, of course, is that to discuss it at face value is to completely miss the point. No one is advocating for a new approach to the law. Much like "state's rights" of old, which was code for the continuation of Jim Crow, "original intent" is simply code for criminalizing abortion. It's really is that simple.