[QUOTE=Malodorous]
That’s what he says, but you suggested that he actually voted against “good and necessary” laws to follow a federalist philosophy. Glancing at his voting record in the linked site, I noted that he apparently has voted to regulate things that are unpopular (flag burning, cloning, partial-birth abortion), even though it seems to me that such regulations at a federal level aren’t consistent with federalism. What specific laws were you thinking of that FT voted against?
[/QUOTE]
The specific laws involve tort reform and attorney fees bills. I don’t have a huge interest in either one of these issues, but I received this impression (and fell in love with him as a candidate) after reading this article.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would not by itself ban abortion, it would simply strip the issue of constitutional protection and place it back in the ordinary political arena. It would make banning abortion a viable option. That would be the worst thing to happen to the Republican Party since . . . well, since W became president. I think most voters, even if they’re uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, still want the clinics to be there in case their teenage daughters get pregnant.
[QUOTE=Diomedes]
The specific laws involve tort reform and attorney fees bills. I don’t have a huge interest in either one of these issues, but I received this impression (and fell in love with him as a candidate) after reading this article.
[/QUOTE]
Very interesting…thank you for linking to that. I believe firmly in what he says there, and if he was committed to sticking to those philosophies as President, he would have my vote. The quote from it below exactly expresses what I have always thought about the purpose of the states:
[QUOTE=Fred Thompson]
As I understood it, states were supposed to be laboratories that would compete with each other, conducting civic experiments according to the wishes of their citizens. The model for federal welfare reform was the result of that process. States also allow for of diverse viewpoints that exist across the country. There is no reason that Tennesseans and New Yorkers should have to agree on everything (and they don’t).
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Overturning Roe v. Wade would not by itself ban abortion, it would simply strip the issue of constitutional protection and place it back in the ordinary political arena. It would make banning abortion a viable option. That would be the worst thing to happen to the Republican Party since . . . well, since W became president. I think most voters, even if they’re uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, still want the clinics to be there in case their teenage daughters get pregnant.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, only 13 states poll at a higher “pro-life” percentage than “pro-choice”. Link, and none of those is particularly large, except maybe Indiana. According to that poll, the split nationally is 38/56 in favor of pro-choice. And we’ve seen that in one of those 13 states, SD, when the Legislature tried to ban abortions, the electorate rejected that ban with a ballot initiative. I’d be surprised if even half of those 13 states would “ban abortion”. Perhaps Utah would be one of those states, but according to this site and this site, there are currently no abortion clinics in that state. So, what would really change if people are now going to Denver and Las Vegas anyway? Yes, it’s a burden, and I would prefer it didn’t happen, but my stronger preference is that people within a state be able to decide for themselves.