Can you honestly tell me you think they can be trusted with that kind of authority without abusing it?
What is the alternative? Voting for flip-floppers like Mitt? Or worse - candidates who say while they are personally pro-life - they won't deny others the right to be pro-choice?
So yeah. If any candidate made pro-life a fundamental aspect of their campain, I would vote for them. I would trust them. See upthread where I mentioned Huckabee. Oh my God! I don't have to tell you of the many FReepers that HATE that man with a passion. Hell, you may be one of them. (lol)
But because he is right on basic fundamental issues (like abortion), then I could care less on some of his secondary flaws.
And as far as "beltway bureaucracies" you speak of that would "nanny state" the pro-life agenda I want, let me ask you. Where were these nanny staters before 1972? I've said it before and I'll say it again: Being pro-life is not indicative of being a nanny stater.
And as far as "beltway bureaucracies" you speak of that would "nanny state" the pro-life agenda I want, let me ask you. Where were these nanny staters before 1972? I've said it before and I'll say it again: Being pro-life is not indicative of being a nanny stater. Before 1972, abortion was a state issue. Are you wanting to return to letting the states decide, or are you wanting to make it an object of federal control and authority?
I'm not accusing you of being a "nanny-stater". I am saying you're naieve if you think giving the federal government the power to do whatever they think they need to to "protect the sanctity of life" can only ever be used for good and will never have any unintended consequences.