Just out of curiosity, why should abortion be a state issue?
ETA: Specifically, why should a woman’s ability to determine what goes on in her body be dependent on what state she lives in?
Because I don’t believe that there is anything in the actual constitution (as opposed to the penumbra of the constitution) that gives the Federal Government the authority to interfere with the states on this matter. Obviously, the SCOTUS disagree with that, but it is not a radical idea. Roe may be settled law at this point, but it’s still considered bad jurisprudence by a significant number of legal scholars, and not just those on the Right.
Allowing a state to assume control over a woman’s uterus is a form of slavery. The Supreme court ruling is absolutely correct.
I’m not going to do the abortion debate in this thread. I was asked a question about my opinion and I gave it. Yours is interesting, but by interjecting the “slavery” aspect, you have strayed into the realm of factual error. Besides, as already noted, Roe allows states to set limits on abortion. We’re left to argue about what those limits are. But according to you, any limit is a " form of slavery".
For the same reason that gun control or other issues should be decided by the folks who live in there. If a majority of people actually believe that human life starts at conception, or that a fetus is a human, or that guns are the evil and shouldn’t be in the hands of private citizens, then why shouldn’t their wishes be reflected in their local legislature? If folks don’t agree then they are always free to move to a different state, right?
And I’m saying this as a pro-choice person who would vote and even campaign or protest if the pro-lifer types tried to get that legislature passed in my home state OR the state I currently live in. But that’s the way our system was set up, and personally I think that stuff like that shouldn’t be handed down by fiat from the federal level, but be decided locally. Personally, I think it’s a non-issue…I don’t believe that there are majorities in any state that would enable abortion to be outlawed…at most, it would be constrained a bit, or perhaps funding from the government cut out.
As to the OP, I’m not planning to vote for Romney, but it’s not because Ryan is a pro-lifer OR a hard core conservative. Romney isn’t, and after all HE is the one running for President. I suppose you could say that, in the unlikely event Romney wins that Ryan would be one heart beat from the president, but frankly I’m more uncomfortable with Biden being in that position than I would be Ryan, at least from a pro-choice/pro-life standpoint…and I AM planning to vote for Obama, despite the fact I think Biden is a buffoon.
It’s funny how “states rights” always get dragged out whenever a group needs to be deprived of their civil and human rights.
Fanatics like Ryan want to ban abortion even in cases of incest and rape, and even in instances when the life of a fully-formed woman is in danger. States rights? Fuck 'em.
If it makes you feel any better, Ryan wants this done at the federal level, and not leave it up to the individual states. That would prevent any state from depriving the fetus of its right to life.
I don’t agree with him, but his claim about “rights” is as valid as yours or mine is. All are based on certain assumptions that cannot be proven to be objectively true.
So, what you are saying is you don’t believe in democracy? Or, you want to impose the will of the majority in the country on local minority groups? Do you feel the same about gay rights? Because locally is where you are seeing movement on gay marriage issues, where as at the federal level it’s going to be a while before it happens. So, do you feel ‘fuck em’ when it comes to issues where the majority of Americans don’t agree with you as well as the ones where they do? Just curious…
QTF.
We’re Americans and citizens of the US of A. Not citizens of a specific State. What, we should go back to each State issuing their own currency?
Ironically, ‘US of A’ stands for the United States of America. 
Again, I have to wonder if people are consistent…do you feel that individual states that have passed gay marriage legislature should have that tossed out because there is no such thing coming down from the federal level…and nothing on the horizon that it will be coming down from the federal level any time in the immediate future.
Heck, even I don’t believe in democracy, the way you describe it. Good thing I’m more into constitutional democracy, with the enshrinement of individual rights and limitations on government power.
Crazy stuff like that.
So, individual states should not be allowed to permit SSM until it’s approved at the federal level? What, we should go back to each State issuing its (not their) own currency?
But you live in Canada. No offense, but our Constitution DOES address the fact that the states were intended to have a lot of sovereign powers vested in them. Obviously, that was heavily modified by the outcome of the Civil War, but even today a lot of powers are vested at the state level. I think it’s ironic that folks who I know support and approve of state vested legislature on pet issues such as gay marriage (when it works for them that way and doesn’t work from the federal level) are all opposed to states legislated powers when they think it doesn’t.
Actually, our provinces can tell our Federal government to go fuck itself in ways your states can only dream about, but no matter.
No, that’s backwards. The states shouldn’t be permitted to arbitrarily deny a group of a right that is afforded generally.
I lived in Ottawa for a while, but I didn’t know that about Canada. Ok…then what’s your issue with that system? Granted, not every democracy works the same, but historically this model has worked out for us, by and large…the biggest failure I can think off would probably be Civil Rights, which DID need to be imposed from the top down to finally start addressing the injustice. But gay marriage is, IMHO, a good modern example of how it can work well from the bottom up in instances where the majority aren’t ready at the national level to address an injustice.
…
At any rate, getting back to the OP, as I said I don’t really have an issue with Ryan being a staunch conservative, though granted I’m a bit removed since I don’t have any intention of voting for Romney. Still, I think that after Bush it’s pretty clear that while the Republican party courts then social conservative vote they are really only paying lip service to issues such as abortion…sort of similar to how the Democrats merely pay lip service to a lot of economic liberal issues and their liberal base.
I don’t think it’s true that he was a cosponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act. The Act was introduced 4 times, once in 1995 by Steve Stockman, where the only cosponsor was Barbara Cubin, and three times by Ron Paul, in 2005, 2007, and 2011.
I see claims online that he did, but Thomas doesn’t list him as a cosponsor any time.
Sorry, need to correct myself. (Hate when that happens.) Turns out Ryan was a cosponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act after all. I was confusing it with the Sanctity of Life Act.
The difference apparently is, the act that Ryan cosponsored just says “We think that fetuses are people”, and the act that Paul introduced said “We think that fetuses are people, and the Supreme Court’s not allowed to say they’re not.”
Well, it’s the so-called “notwithstanding clause”. If, say, the federal government said “gay marriages for everyone”, a province could say “nope” and override the legislation for five years, after which they can renew their “nope” for another five years, and so on.
SSM is not afforded, generally.