Will
11-25-2007, 04:48 PM
Doesn't matter. His stance is that it is a State decision. if a Bill came across his desk as President, that called for the abolish of Abortion; Ron Paul would Veto it all the same.
I see no reason at all to believe that, unless he is quoted as actually saying it, I aint buying it. Now having said that, I consider it a Const. right, that all people have the right to decide what happens to their own body regardless, and i would expect it to remain under Const protection. He does not feel that way.
States could decide a lot is unConst things (and have) which should, and are, trumped by the US Const. on review by SCOTUS. RP does not feel the right to abortion is a Const. protected right, and he has said as much, thus it's nothing but spin to say it's a state right, when it's not, at least not to me, millions of others, and SCOTUS as it stands right now.
Taking it out of the hands of federal regulation because SCOTUS views it as a right protected under the US Const is nothing but a defacto way of getting it banned in most states, it's simple back end spin, nothing more and nothing less.
I see no reason at all to believe that, unless he is quoted as actually saying it, I aint buying it. Now having said that, I consider it a Const. right, that all people have the right to decide what happens to their own body regardless, and i would expect it to remain under Const protection. He does not feel that way.
States could decide a lot is unConst things (and have) which should, and are, trumped by the US Const. on review by SCOTUS. RP does not feel the right to abortion is a Const. protected right, and he has said as much, thus it's nothing but spin to say it's a state right, when it's not, at least not to me, millions of others, and SCOTUS as it stands right now.
Taking it out of the hands of federal regulation because SCOTUS views it as a right protected under the US Const is nothing but a defacto way of getting it banned in most states, it's simple back end spin, nothing more and nothing less.