[Gelato]

I think some people might have a hard time with his federalist views regading abortion but I don't.

I do.

If Thompson was a true federalist, he would stand for the right to life as guaranteed by our Constitution, and not pretend the unborn aren't covered by the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is untenable to say we can both overturn Roe and deny the unborn constitutional protection. The only legitimate basis for overturning Roe is to recognize the personhood of the unborn, and deny all mothers the "right" to kill. Otherwise, destroying the valueless fetus is just a private medical decision the woman has the right to make.

As a nation, we either respect the right to life, or we don't.

[John Valentine]

The only legitimate basis for overturning Roe is to recognize the personhood of the unborn, and deny all mothers the "right" to kill.

Most constitutional scholars would disagree vehemently with this statement. I'll only say that it seems monumentally ignorant of the law in general and the specifics of Roe v. Wade in particular.

[John Valentine]

As a nation, we either respect the right to life, or we don't.

Obviously false.

As INDIVIDUALS, we may either respect the right to life or we don't, but there is obviously no such consensus on a national scale.

If there were, laws against abortion would be as commonplace and non-controversial as laws against murder, cannibalism, and dismemberment.

There would be no movement calling for Federalism of the issue, any more than there is now a national movement to make cannibalism a Federal crime.