Dionysius... wrote: “So, it would not “hurt” him or his beloved Federalism to support the amendment.”
Based on the interview, that’s not his only reason for opposing the amendment. He’s a federalist, but it appears he also doesn’t want to make abortion a federal crime. In other words, he’s opposed to abortion but he’s not ready to turn even more power over to the federal government. I’m opposed to abortion, but I’m also not ready to execute or imprison women who have abortions as murderers. Yet, that’s what a constitutional amendment would require, isn’t it?
Uh, last time I checked an amendment by itself does not create laws. Congress could follow up on an amendment and make abortion a federal crime. But they’d need to pass specific laws, just as many laws, state and federal have been passed in the wake of Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v Board etc.
Or they could be good federalists and leave legislation to the states. If Fred says that the amendment by itself criminalizes, he’s wrong. Passage and ratification of the amendment is very unlikely anyway, but even if it did get ratified, federal legislation following up on it is even less likely. So that’s a red herring. I’m willing to grant Fred the benefit of the doubt and say he just didn’t think it through rather than that he was being disingenous.
Or is your objection to states making abortion a state crime? A good federalist would let the states criminalize what they wish to (subject as always to judicial review)?
Look, if you are for the overturning of R v W then you are for at least the opportunity to criminalize abortion, either as a federal or a state crime.