Well, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
I am one of those pig ignorant cretans who don't support Paul.
Which means, guess what!!!!
I've commented on this topic already, but I acknowledge this means nothing to a Paul cultist.
So, the question you avoided.
Ron Paul supports the right of a minor, any age, to cross state lines to purchase an abortion, presumably a boob job, tatoo, drugs, chin lift, drugs, whatever; without parential permission.
tacticalogic is left with the choice of either supporting the Ron Paul position, what the hell business is it of parents when the 12 year old wants and abortion, or bitching and whining about HR1592.
Where the hell is your head at.
-----------------
AM, if someone complains about the language, if left out the ***'s, I stand by every word I said.
In other words, you figure you’ll just bluff and bluster your way throgh the obvious problems with your arguments and your “reasoning” when it becomes apparent they’re full of holes. Chest pounding, foot stomping and finger wagging. Nothing more.
A simple solution to this would be in allowing such freedoms would be to pass a law within the respective legislature limiting said freedoms to the citizens of that state.
Will there be those that slip through? Probably Will it be perfect? Of course not. But compare the system we have today to the intent of the Framers. One of these is not like the other....
Of course these same ills would occur if socons had their way passing national legislation on moral issues. But socons would have us believe the roads would be tied up in traffic for miles if the responsibilities were returned to the states instead of being legislated by our 'wise' leaders in Washington DC
Mr. Madison stated quite clearly where such issues lay in Federalist 45. Now if you want to take it up with him that's your business. But the intent of the Constitution is very limited and was not meant to cover these issues. But you knew that didn't you? You may not like that's the case but you did know that...