[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

"Federalism doesn’t defend abortion. Leaving abortion law in the hands of the Federal government (as it has been since 1973) does. That’s what you started out advocating" Perhaps this was an honest misunderstanding, but I never advocated any such thing. I am stating that no government, state or federal, has the authority, legal or otherwise, to kill any innocent human being. Federalism is not equal to states' rights. Perhaps that is where we are clashing. Federalism is the belef that no person or governmental body should or can be trusted with all the power. That is why the founders, and the population at large, wanted divided government, with specified powers, and reserved powers. Killing innocent babies does not fall within anyone's legitimate authority. I believe strongly in states' rights, but that by itself is not federalism.

[counterpunch]

I am stating that no government, state or federal, has the authority, legal or otherwise, to kill any innocent human being.

That is true, and also moot. Government is not aborting babies. Private abortionists are. The Constitution is a contract between the government and the people. Just as the 1st Amendment protects you from government censoring your speech, the forum administrator on Free Republic — a private website — is not bound by that and can censor and delete your comments, and even ban you from the site. Do you understand the difference? Government is not performing abortions in abortion clinics or deleting posts on Free Republic. Private citizens are. Roe v. Wade stated that government cannot prohibit the free exercise of abortion by the people, which does not conflict in any way with government being prohibited from administering them.

Federalism is not equal to states' rights.

Not by itself, but it is a central component.