And the other 20 states would be busy doing the abortions. Not a good solution, though better than what we have now
A thirty state ban would only help the Greyhound Bus Company.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I’dlove to see a constitutional amensment, but this would certainly be a great start.
Looks like a partial list of states the abortionist Giuliani would lose should he wrangle the nomination. Add the rest of the blue states and you have a landslide for Hillary. Puke!
And if she's too poor I'm sure liberals would try to subsidize abortion buses.
Fewer than 10 would completely ban abortion. 10-30 would have various levels of restrictions, and the balance would leave the bloody system as is.
Abortion stops a baby's beating heart.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
“All 50 states would be better, but 30 would be a great start!”
Yes, it is a start, but it’s unbelievable that our laws allow even one baby to be killed, let alone over 48 million.
But we will do all we can to save as many as possible, of course.
Lot of blue states in that list.
Don’t believe it. As they point out, only 4 states have tried, only one passed it, and that was rejected.
So now, when there’s no downside to the vote, nobody is voting for it. How are you going to get anybody to vote for it when the pro-abortion groups will be highly motivated to stop it?
This is just a pro-abortion group trying to scare pro-abortionists into voting democrat next election, or else pro-abortion republicans to vote for Rudy in the hopes he’s lying about his court picks.
bookmarked
Interesting list there. Midwest and South mostly. Some, heavily Catholic and Southern Baptist in my guesstamation.
I guess that would be better than the present situation. Here’s the problem. It would be illegal in some states, but the personhood of the unborn child would still not be recognized nationwide. In some states the unborn child would be worthy of life, but in other states, the unborn child would be a “blob of tissue” able to be discarded at will as medical waste. Likely the unborn children who are victims of rape, incest, or some illness/deformity would still not be protected in states with abortion bans. The goal of this nation is to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all people from sea to shining sea. Our nation would say the unborn are worthy of life in some states based on certain circumstances but not worthy of life in others. It doesn’t matter if the unborn child is concieved mutually, in rape, incest, or with illness/deformity. What matters is that the unborn child is an innocent person and therefore worthy of the right to life in this country. That is why I will fight for Duncan Hunter with everything I have. His Life At Conception Act would end abortion with an act of Congress and a President’s signature by recognizing the personhood of the unborn child from conception.
I ask anyone here who is looking for the best pro-life candidate, to join with me in supporting Duncan Hunter in 2008. The unborn children saved will certainly thank you.
Were this to happen, I can see Katie Couric now interviewing a “poor” person who has to travel to another state at considerable expense to procure her “needed” abortion. Katie will then tell the sheeple how “unfair” that is.
actually the LEGAL arugumnt goes like, “so reversing Roe vs. Wade would NOT make abortion illegal. Reversal of that opinion would ONLY put it back on individual states to decide.”
Kind of kills their legal boogey man.
How many states do or do not do a particular act is irrelevant.
simple, clean and elegant.