In fairness, this is from an interview with Mr. Johnson by the Weekly Standard:
“But as a matter of law, Johnson thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. ‘It should be a states issue to begin with,’ he says.’The criteria for a Supreme Court justice would be that those justices rule on the original intent of the constitution. Given that, it’s my understanding that that justice would overturn Roe v. Wade.’”
He thinks that abortion should be legal up to viability (which is about 20 weeks or so? and that's pretty darned gross and evil), but he thinks the states have the right to decide the question for themselves.
If he were to nominate anti-Roe Supreme Court justices, it could advance the cause of life.
On the other hand, it's clear that he's a cheerleader for abortion “rights” otherwise.
Tougher call.
sitetest
Wonderful. He ascribes to the 'half-pregnant' philosophy when it comes to 'life'.
Which, of course, begs the question:
Other than the supreme right, the right to live, what other unalienable rights should be considered "a state issue"? Speech? Press? Religious liberty? The Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Trial by a jury of your peers? Parental rights? What? If states can "decide" against these rights, have not they alienated what Americans have always called unalienable?
This whole Stephen A. Douglas Democrat concept is a gross denial of the most important cornerstone principles of our free republic, upon which we premise our form of government and our entire claim to liberty.
And other Republicans, like Gerald R. Ford, and Ron Paul, and Rand Paul, and John McCain, and Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin, have gone down the same unconstitutional pro-choice for states, states' rights trump unalienable rights, road.
The broad path to destruction.