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.
If I murder somebody (in the state of MD), does the Federal government have the right to arrest and try me?
Answer: NO. the state has to do so.
Reason: Federalism. You call it false federalism. You are wrong.
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?
In which article, which amendment is this enumerated? You claim the Ninth Amendment, which states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That's all well and good. But, in light of the 10th Amendment, you are spewing meaningless drivel:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Look, FRiend, you talk about a "RTL" amendment. I agree with that, as it limits Congress' power to make laws to fund abortion. It also changes that paradigm so that criminal assault and homicide laws would apply to the pre-born. But, if you take a look at Article 5 of the Constitution, you will learn that the Executive Branch has absolutely no role in the amendment process:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The President doesn't sign the amendment, he doesn't propose the amendment, he doesn't vote on the amendment. He has no authority when it comes to amending the constitution.
What the Executive can do is to propose SCOTUS justices who will overturn Roe. And return the power to the states, where it belongs. And that's what Palin advocated. As she should.