[rightazrain]

“Fred “leave it to the states” Thompson...”

Uh, it’s called Federalism. Roe v Wade took away the rights of the states to decide.

Meanwhile, at this time a constitutional amendment is unattainable. But if it goes back to the states, local politics can hone in on changes for the good of the unborn.

Fred wants to nominate judges who will overturn Roe v Wade.

[mnehring]

The ‘state approach’ to abortion would be the most efficient way. You can’t have a Constitutional victory until you have 2/3rds of the States supporting, so if you start with a State by State approach, you can have immediate action while and know when you have enough to pull the Constitutional trigger, if needed. If you pull the trigger too soon, without having the 2/3rds of the States, you could kill the pro-life movement with a Constitutional loss.

[unspun]

Uh, it’s called Federalism. Roe v Wade took away the rights of the states to decide. Meanwhile, at this time a constitutional amendment is unattainable. But if it goes back to the states, local politics can hone in on changes for the good of the unborn. Fred wants to nominate judges who will overturn Roe v Wade.

Neither federalism nor incrementalism are adequate excuses for being against a Human Life Amendment and a Protection of Marriage Amendment.

There is a constitutional (thus, federalist) way of such a thing, just as there was, to guarantee freedom from slavery -- in each and every state and territory.

People who do not understand that our Constitution rests upon our founding declaration of the Right to Life have a flawed political stance -- likely tragically so.