Who said I'm saying that? You're twisting my words when I'm agreeing with you on the fundamental point -- our only disagreement is on the role of the federal government.
You can't read the same documents and tell me that the federal government can write and enforce state laws. But, and I repeat myself again, because you seem to be intentionally missing the point, those state laws must pass 14th Amendment muster.
Okay. Now what?
By the way, that is not the position of Fred Thompson, or that of a number of other candidates in this field. They are arguing that abortion is entirely a State matter.
Another comment, while I’m awaiting your reply to the other.
Overturning Roe simply gets us back to pre-Roe status...the one directly before it was decided...a situation in which several States had decided they had the right to allow the killing of babies in their jurisdictions. Without a declaration of the personhood of the unborn, we’re in a bigger mess than ever, with more people completely confused, and with no basis left to fight against this holocaust.
You do realize, I hope, that I’m not arguing against the overturning of Roe. I’m saying that without a declaration of the personhood of the unborn, from one or more of the three co-equal branches of government, overturning Roe will save few, if any, lives, and very well could put the country into an even worse position vis a vis the protection of the unalienable right to life.