I was thinking about Roe v Wade on the ride in today (with the whole SCOTUS nomination deal)..

then Dale over at QandO goes and posts this. I am really getting sick of the whole abortion debate. They really do need to overturn Roe, and let the states debate and duke it out. A few states would possibly outlaw them, but then you could still just cross state lines to get one if you so wanted. But at least the people would be able to decide, not the folks in black robes. It would have some real interesting effects on the make up of the parties, I would think. But I am just tired of it being an issue. Get the Feds out of it, and let the states decide. Same with gay marriage.

13 Responses to “I was thinking about Roe v Wade on the ride in today (with the whole SCOTUS nomination deal)..”

  1. Mr. Bingley says:

    Like I’ve said before, I’d much rather allow a gay couple to marry and commit legally to one another than allow an unmarried couple to shack up with no commitment and yet still receive benefits.

  2. Crusader says:

    If a state wants to do that, fine by me. But don’t use the feds to enforce that on my state if we choose not to legalize it. That is my point.

  3. Ah, but are you moving if the majority of citizens say Mr. and Mr. Stan Smith are fine with me?

  4. Infanticide, Plain and Simple

    I lied. I said I would not get into the Supreme Court nominee fight that is about to begin on Capital Hill, but I do feel the need to add something.
    I was reading the Washington Post today when I came across this editorial about the high stakes that …

  5. Crusader says:

    If there is another state that chose not to legalize it, yes , I suppose I would consider it, or just work to not have it legalized in my state/have dif laws enacted. But at least I would have the ability to choose, instead of judicial decision, which is what we are stuck with at this point. I prefer the citizens themselves being given the choice to vote on the matters, which hasn’t bode well for the gay issue, and has not been allowed on abortion. If it is voted on, I can at least live with the result and change it in the future. Not so cut and dry with the judges.

  6. Well spoken, Grasshopper! (I don’t agree with you on alot, but you are always level-headed. You make me so proud…)

  7. Crusader says:

    Aw geeze sis……..

  8. NJ Sue says:

    I agree. Regardless of your views on such things, there is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution about abortion or marriage; therefore laws regulating such things should be a matter for the individual states, just like the age of consent.

  9. Mr. Bingley says:

    Which in our daughter’s case will be something over 50…

  10. Dave J says:

    I doubt I could’ve said it better (though I’m sure I could’ve said it in an obscure way you laypeople wouldn’t understand). 😉 This is simply a matter of federal concern. While my personal position on abortion goes back on forth, the overall attitude of the country is “pro-choice but with significant restrictions.” Yet the abortion activists have whipped a lot of people into a hysterical frenzy over the subject by essentially repeating a lie, namely that overruling Roe would result in a nationwide abortion ban, which is patently ridiculous.

  11. Dave J says:

    Simply NOT a matter of federal concern, I meant, of course.

  12. Mr. Bingley says:

    Dang lawyers, always covering both sides…

Image | WordPress Themes