I cannot agree. This goes way beyond "state's rights". I might be more sympathic to such an arguement if "state's rights" were honored in the case of abortion. They are not. It has been deemed by the "men in black" that states cannot forbide abortion - something not addressed in the Constitution; a privacy arguement is specious at best. Those men in black also recently said Texas sodomy laws were unconstitutional. By what convoluted reasoning did they come to that conclusion - certainly not by reading the Constitution as it was intended?
State's rights are only invoked when it favors a "left wing" agenda and the culture of death and legal perversion. When it works against that agenda, then they scream that the Federal trumps the State.
I have always come down on the side of "states rights", but this is not the real case here. The legislative and executive branchs of that State tried to save this woman. They were overruled by the judical. The Florida Supreme
Court is the most activist - out of control - court in the country.
This isn't really a "State's Rights" issue. The larger issue is about whether judical tyranny will be allowed to continue. So, if I have to be perceived as being against State's Rights - then so be it. Until those rights are trully followed then that is a false charge.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you think abortion is a states' rights issue (I agree, BTW), then so is this. Because it has been improperly made a federal issue doesn't mean we should do the same here.