[for-q-clinton]

Dobson is in favor of an amendment to the constitution that protects unborn children versus turning it back to the states. He probably thinks (and rightly so) that if it is turned back to the states, it will likely remain legal.

As we all know, Fred is in favor of turning it back to the states.

And that's the problem with many conservatives...they too prefer to ignore the constitution in favor of pushing their views on the masses at the federal level.

Turning it back to the states is a possible step forward. A nation-wide ban is NOT going to happen.

[malos]

You don’t understand. Its all or nothing. Unless we get everything we get Hillary.

[MEGoody]

And that's the problem with many conservatives...they too prefer to ignore the constitution in favor of pushing their views on the masses at the federal level.

Who is ignoring the constitution? Going after a constitutional amendment protecting the life of the unborn would be right in line with the constitution. The constitution PROVIDES for amendments. (Sheesh)

A nation-wide ban is NOT going to happen.

You may be right. But the reality is, if that's the case, it isn't going to happen on a state by state basis either.

The point I was making is, the author of this article is trying to say Dobson's motivations are pride. Unless he can read minds and hearts, the writer should stick to arguing against Dobson's position, not make a fool of himself by trying to state as fact what another's motives are.