[Spiff]

The other thing that bothers me is that they seem all too willing to use the machinery of the State to achieve their objectives, rather than incremental and socially desired limits on abortion. But if they think they will ban abortion even up to the zygote level, they are fanatics who have no place making policy.

We're trying to work incrementally. The trouble is that the tragic and WRONG Roe v. Wade decision has been the biggest obstacle for decades. We must reverse that and then we can start working state by state, trimester by trimest, to roll back abortion. We can't do that while the Federal Government believes that it must protect a woman's "right" to pay someone to kill her own living child.

[Skywalk]

I agree on the Roe v Wade thing, I'm just saying the way to win even some liberals on your side is to lower the volume a bit on the rhetoric and try to win each step using moral suasion so that people are more accepting of LEGAL limits, not just self-imposed moral restraints.

[AndyJackson]

we can start working state by state

I do support making this a states rights issue. I don't see anything in the Constitution that makes this a Federal issue. I do have a question though? When abortion is unlawful in Red State X and lawful in Blue State Y, and a resident A of X goes to Y to have an abortion, can state X prosecute A for murder. Can X demand extradition from Y for A?

You need to think this through because New York and Maryland, and Massachussetts and Washington State at a minimum will remain abortion "havens" for the foreseeable future.