I can't believe I left out one of the other things that motivated me to make that Ron Paul post.
Check out this out:
Ron Paul on Racism. That right there is a link to Paul's "Racism" plank in his platform. When I told Grant the very brief version of why Ron Paul is a racist, I only had the newsletter to go on. And while I don't care that that
(
Read more... )
Abortion rights have nothing to do with the enumerated powers of the federal government: either women have reproductive rights that trump state authority or they don't (this being where the idea of the penumbra of privacy provided by the Fourth Amendment, etc, comes into play in Roe). Abortion, after all, is purely an issue of individual rights (contrast this with the debate over the Endangered Species Act, the constitutionality of which directly turns on the enumerated powers of the federal government), and if women have such rights that trump state authority, then no government can ban (note: not regulate, ban, since one can plausibly argue that certain restrictions on abortion are well within the interest and authority of the state) abortion (which shows the disingenuity of those who claim that overturning Roe would "send the issue back to the states).
On the other hand, if women don't have such rights, then any government on any level can ban abortion.
So the idea of abortion rights not being in the Constitution have nothing to do with it, since no government is given the power to ban abortion, either. Rather, the government can do what is in its interest and authority to do. So, your dismissive claim about "abortion rights not being in the Constitution" must boil down to a claim, by you, that women do not have individual rights concerning their ability to make free choices about abortion, which seems like a fairly basic right to either have or not have...yet you ask "what's so scary about individual choices and freedom?"
Interesting position to take. And by "interesting," I don't really mean "interesting."
Reply
Leave a comment