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.
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"....
Actually, I want an Amendment to the Constitution mandating the sanctity of life shall not be denied to the unborn.
As far as my zeal goes towards the pro-life issue - I'm not ashamed to be labled a "nanny stater" to that extent.
But I am confused as to how "Big Gubmint" could abuse and manipulate such a pro-life ideal that would actually be harmful in some way.
Can you theorize for me on what could possibly go wrong?