Abortion absolutely should be a Federal issue, and not a state issue. Why? Because the pro lifers argue that abortion is murder. You really think states should have the right to allow murder? Should a person who lives in Alabama, where they claim abortion is murder, be allowed by Alabama law to go to New York to get an abortion, something legal in New York, but considered murder in Alabama? Geez, state's rights folks are not thinking clearly...
And you call this pathetic excuse for a legal argument "thinking"? LOL You really are full of yourself eh ZZZZZzzzzz?
Yeah, I mean what are we thinking? We should just throw out all states rights altogether, since this could apply to any differences in legal policy in one state to another.
Optional, If the issue could or should be guided by philosophical consistency, you would have a point. Unfortunately that is not possible because there is not CONSENSUS on this issue (unlike MURDER). If there was no consensus on murder, then it could and should not be a federal issue either. Thinking that this is a legitimate counter-example ignores the point: THERE IS A HUGE, OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS THAT MURDER IS A CRIME. Issues that apply to the broad population need popular consensus in order to be legitimate, and murder is the perfect example of such. If there was MASS DISAGREEMENT about the legal status of murder, it rightly could not be a federal issue either. But as I said, there are those who just "cant leave it alone" and unfortunately "F" the issue up for everyone else. Both liberals such as Optional AND conservatives are guilty of this.
States don't have the right to determine US citizenship, nor the standards by which US citizenship is determined. What part of United States don't you understand? Almost everyone with a functioning brain stem knows the moment a state passes and signs into law a case will be presented to a federal judge...not a state judge. The federal judge will immediately stay supercede the state's decision. Haven't you been paying attention to what happens when a state passes a law that is not in their jurisdiction? There are federal and state issues, US citizenship is not a state issue, period. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264655/arizona-s-immigration-law-hans-von-spakovsky
There is not consensus, just as there was not consensus at one time about slavery, but the issue is murder or not. No state should be able to say that something is murder, where a neighboring state says it is not. There are certain issues that require a uniformity of law applying to every citizen in every state. So Alabama says abortion is murder. A woman goes to New York, has the abortion. The state of Alabama issues a warrant for her arrest. What does the state of New York do? I don't think you are really thinking clearly on this one. The United States trumps individual states rights. That's the price of membership...
I accept you disagree, but I don't believe you are making a solid argument for your position for abortion to be considered murder in one state, and allowed to be considered a medical procedure in another state. "Euthanasia is illegal in all states of the United States. Physician aid-in-dying (PAD) is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Montana. The key difference between euthanasia and PAD is who administers the lethal dose of medication. Euthanasia entails the physician or another third party administering the medication, whereas PAD requires the patient to self-administer the medication and to determine whether and when to do this. Attempts to legalize PAD resulted in ballot initiatives and "legislation bills" within the United States of America in the last 20 years. For example, the state of Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119 in 1991, the state of California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992, Oregon voters passed Measure 16 (Death with Dignity Act) in 1994, the state of Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998, and Washington's Initiative 1000 passed in 2008." It has been established in the decision of Roe vs. Wade that a woman has the constitutional right to an abortion. The Supreme Court cannot overturn itself. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that precedent.
Right. Part of my point was that issues such as this need to be put on the back burner. The "right to an abortion" is an interpretation of the constitution, not a specific statute, and as such it could indeed be changed if a new court chose to do so. but again, see point #1.