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.
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:
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.