Who's equal?

My interpretation of constitutional matters is that the government’s authority stops abruptly with the Bill of Rights in every instance. The precise enumeration within the Bill of Rights makes the interpretation of those mentioned civil rights crystal clear for me, and it is a perplexing experience when others feel compelled to give the government more authority than is absolutely itemized. To give the government access into and control over those matters that our founders felt should be left to the personal sphere of privacy, is to provide the government with far more power than was ever intended, and thus enthusiastically open avenues for their own oppression. Americans often lose sight of the vital importance of autonomy for all and willingly give up their granted rights for a short-term sense of safety from perceived dangers and unpopular opinions. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”\nMy happily libertarian just-right-of-anarchist brain turns to mush, however, when faced with cases of sexual equality. As much as I want to scream “14th Amendment” from the highest roof in Bloomington, the Constitution and its amendments are simply inadequate in guaranteeing my equal protection. The intent of the 14th Amendment was never envisioned in its inception to extend to women. It was to guarantee inclusion in the democratic process to African-American males and their male progeny. That has now been stretched and bent by the Supreme Court to try to include women. The problem is that without articulating the inclusion of women as equal citizens and unequally criminalizing everyone that’s not a heterosexual male, equal protection of those oppressed populations will only occur when it is politically convenient.\nThe recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart is a perfect example of this, especially in contrast with Roe v. Wade. The issue at hand in both these cases was essentially the same: Does the government have a duty to respect the female right to sexual autonomy? In Roe v. Wade, it was politically attractive to say “Yes.” In Gonzales v. Carhart, it was politically attractive to say “No.” This difference in answering the exact same question proves that no concrete constitutional protection for women actually exists. Had the framers intended to include women as “persons,” the rights of sexual and medical autonomy as extrapolated from the constitutionally protected sphere of privacy – enjoyed by men – would have absolutely been extended to women in both cases.\nAs proud as America is of having the oldest (and apparently least flexible) Constitution, the amount of dancing and jiving the Supreme Court has to do to solve these issues is flirting with banality. It is time for the courts to stop having the authority to conveniently stretch gender equality due to the wording of an amendment never meant to extend to women. At the very least, women deserve an amendment guaranteeing their equal protection – so female autonomy is no longer a political tool of convenience, but an institutionalized guarantee against the persisting constructed differences in citizenship experienced by both men and women.