Tom, it's a very complicated issue that could get far less complicated if we took the federal money out of the equation. That would probably be a good starting point. The moral issue will never be resolved.
thats bs. every state has a right to be heard by the supreme court if they think their rights are being violated. the constitution says what the supreme court says it says.
1. You just conceded the that there should be no abortions after about the 22nd week. 2. By your implicit logic society should not have murder laws and theft laws.
the social contract is that people give the govt power to protect them from others who would infringe on their freedoms. abortion is so contentious because it pits the idea that the women should be free to kill something in her own body against the mandate govt has to protect -- either- human life for its own citizens. noting this issue you can see why many on the pro life side to concede that when the moms life is in jeopardy you should save the moms life.
1. i think that would be a common sense compromise. 2.first class strawman argument that makes no sense.
wrong... that is not true... the supreme court in Marbury vs. Madison said they have the right to review laws of congress. it is arguable the Supreme Court has no right to infringe on matters which are are within the states own jurisdiction. And you can see that the U.S. supreme court does not take up certain cases because of that respect for states rights.
the way i see it: if the state is so desperate to save an unwanted baby, it should take care of the child after birth and guarantee his/her quality of life to be similar to a baby raised in a family.
nonsense. and you call yourself a lawyer? can a state pass an unconstitutional law and have the supreme court defer to states rights when it is challenged?