Try a little exercise: instead of the right to life, insert any other unalienable right into the Paul family’s formulation and see how well it works out for you, logically.
Do you think North Dakota, under our Constitution, could outlaw guns, or free speech, or freedom of the press, or trial by jury, or parental rights?
Let me remind you, the right to life is the supreme unalienable right; the one right without which you can never again hope to ever enjoy all the rest.
No BUT with respect to the citizens of the State of North Dakota and their State government, I don't think it's in MY place, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, to decide for them, nor do I think it is in their place to decide for me and for my fellow Citizens of the Commonwealth.
Do you think that the citizens of one State should be allowed to make decisions for the citizens of another State, as a general rule?