Oddly enough, when you have a SCOTUS decision like Roe v. Wade which nationalises the abortion issue, and which is subsequently used to overturn any attempts at federalism on the issue, you sort of have to first get SCOTUS justices who will overturn the previous bad judicial interpretation before the issue can be returned back to the States. Get it?
That's why "social conservatives" have turned abortion into a general election platform?
Last I checked, an electoral platform was not law. An electoral platform is what a party uses as its guiding principles and which (generally) identify what a candidate from that party will tend to believe. And yes, if the social conservatives want to turn abortion into a general electoral point so as to see expansive and unconstitutional judicial activism (read Roe v. Wade) overturned, and returned to the States, then that's a point FOR federalism.
That's why "social conservatives" enacted law that takes my right to spend my money any way I please?
Without your being more specific, this point has absolutely no meaning.
That's why "social conservatives" have thrown out the separation of church and state by taxing me and giving my money to Pat Robertson?
If we want to be real technical about the Constitution, there IS no "separation of church and state". However, saying so does not make a person a "theocrat", it merely makes them a Constitutional literalist. As for "giving money to Pat Robertson", I'd have to ask for some eludication on this (linkie please?) because as it currently stands, this makes you sound like you are perilously close to being in "kook conspiracy theorist" country.....