[Albion Wilde]

I am not in favor of anyone's having an abortion. But too often, people on the right refuse to consider that an incremental approach may be a more do-able option than all-or-nothing. The immediate benefit of throwing the decision back to the states is to remove the long arm of the Federal judiciary from the issue and make the states handle it locally. This would be progress politically, even though some wrong-headed people would still opt for abortion, and some conservative purists would continue to shoot their natural allies over a less-than-perfect step towards their goal.

Moving the decision back to the states where it belongs, consitutionally, would allow the local action groups to fight locally for incremental limitations, such as allowing abortion but insisting on parental notification, etc. Local citizens could travel more easily to the state capital to get involved, local churches and retired grandparents with the time but not the means to travel to DC could get involved, and various other benefits.

[EternalVigilance]

The problem with your arguments is that the “incrementalists” are personified by people like Steele. They destroy any basis for even arguing against abortion, much less overturning Roe vs. Wade. Wake up.

[Ransomed]

Are you sure there would be enough folks left on the other side to mount such an effort in the hardcore baby butchery states? Many Freepers on this thread seem to advocate leaving a state in protest that babies may be butchered. Besides, I bet it would be just as difficult or even easier to pass some type of national legislation than to try to outlaw baby butchery in NY or CA.

Overturning roe is a start. But then, I bet it will take national action to save those Americans who have the bad luck to be in the womb in a pro-baby butchery states. It would be like tolerating being able to enslave Americans in some states.

Freegards