Replies

Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. ... Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue—as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty—but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level. As with many other issues, the division of sentiment within each State was not as closely balanced as it was among the population of the Nation as a whole, meaning not only that more people would be satisfied with the results of state by state resolution, but also that those results would be more stable. ... [B]y continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.--Anton Scalia

I'm going to have to agree with Justice Scalia, Dr. Paul, and the Framers on this issue. Not in the Constitution? Shut up and deal with it at the state level. Of course the social conservatives believe everything under the sun was intended to be legislated or ruled on at the federal level. It was not. The 20th century revisionism of the 14th Amendment has destroyed the Republic. Abortion, murder, death penalty, and people in vegetative states laying around in beds are not issues for the Supreme Court, hacks in Congress, or the President.

Of course now I'll be soundly attacked for supporting abortion (which I do not) and whipping baby seals with baseball bats (or worse being a liberal!!). You want to change the laws. Get to work in your state and quit mucking around with the national government. This is yet one more reason I will cast a vote for Dr. Paul and no one else. The Constitution is clear. This is not an issue for the federal courts