The states all held these rights prior to Roe-v-Wade.
The constitution says nothing about abortion. The powers are not specifically granted to the federal government ergo they are reserved to the states.
In fact what Fred is saying with his federalist answer is he thinks we should roll things back to where they were before Roe.
And at the end of the day that is what we want.
The problem is the courts are ignoring the constitution entirely, not that we simply disagree with which way they are inventing eminating pneumbras.
Have some faith in the voters of each state. Thats what the founders did.
Even in CA when the voters get to vote they don’t do too bad. Its the liberal courts that ignore the constitution that cause the problems.
I guess that Bill of Rights thing has now been entirely excised, eh?
I'm amazed at how many today can't discern the difference between putting the federal government back within the powers which are enumerated in the Constitution, ie true federalism, and the fundamental job of government: the protection and guarantee of the God-given and unlienable rights to life and liberty.
Two reasons I think Fred Thompson's federalism is phony:
1) Federalism does not mean that unalienable rights are alienable.
2) I don't see Fred calling for the dismantlement of any of the parts of the current federal behemoth which are not among the Enumerated Powers. Not even the Department of Education. Not even the National Endowment for the Arts. Etc.
The only way you can believe that is:
1) If you agree with Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe, that unborn children are not persons.
and,
2) That the word "posterity" has some other meaning than its dictionary meaning.