Unlike many here, I don't only publish articles that I agree with. Your point is well made. Actually I agree with Bush's decision not to fund stem cell research, but for an entirely different reason--the one you make. It's no business of the federal government to be funding medical research of any kind (or education for that matter).
As far as the argument about crimes against humans, according to our federal constitution, that's a matter that is left to the states. Why is abortion any different? If a the residents of a state want to outlaw abortion entirely, and it legally permitted by their state constitution, then by all means outlaw it. The federal government should have no role, one way or the other. I applaud South Dakota's effort, but why should it be subject to second guessing by the SCOTUS?
Hmmmmm, who was it that wrote this? Oh yeah, it was you, up in post #20! Now you say, you'd have no problem with a state outlawing abortion, just not the Fed. So which is it? WOuldn't the so-called "zealots" still be using your dreaded "police power of government" to impose their views?
In the interest of full disclosure, I also believe, as do most of the conservative members of the USSC, that abortion is a state issue. But I'd have no problem with a federal law outlawing abortions in the third trimester, much as I have no problem with federal laws against the murder of US postal employees.