…
PALIN: I think it should, and I think that states should be able to decide that issue.
Guess what? That is the CONSERVATIVE position. The Feds should not mandate one way or the other.
The battleground should be at the STATE level.
The follow-up question should be, "in such a situation, as the governor of Alaska, would you support such a bill prohibiting abortion in your state?"
Until you have that answer, you have no basis to support your ridiculous claim. She lives pro-life...she is even against embryonic stem cell research, unlike McCain (according to a statement in the 2006 gubernatorial debate shown recently on c-span).
You have NO basis for your claim.
Unalienable rights are not a state issue. Your position confuses and conflates unalienable rights - some of which are enumerated in our Constitution and some of which are not (that's why there's a Ninth Amendment), and Enumerated Powers. You, and Ron Paul, and John McCain, and Sarah Palin, are promoting a false federalism by doing so.
She lives pro-life
You mean because she didn't kill her child? Since when is not killing your child considered to be proof that you're "pro-life"?
The Feds should not mandate one way or the other.
The right to life is the supreme right. Which critical, but lesser, rights do you also think are state issues? The right to keep and bear arms? Free speech? Freedom of assembly? The right against self-incrimination?
You have NO basis for your claim.
I have every basis for my claim. Please tell us how you think you have a basis for states to alienate rights that our founding documents call unalienable.