No, abortion is not a state issue

There seems to be a lot of controversy based upon a paragraph in an article on GraniteGrok:

That doesn’t mean we will be militant with overreaching declarations from DC when we represent enough of the governing body to decide. As small-government Federalists, we want issues pertaining to health care to be handled by the states, medical professionals, and most importantly the individuals affected. At a national level we would want to reverse Roe v. Wade and allow individual precedents to be argued from a Constitutional basis as new state legislation is challenged and escalated. As a nation, we must demonstrate an appreciation for the sanctity of life. The only Constitutional way to approach it is to let states legislate the details. From there, challenges can and often will escalate to the Supreme Court. As imperfect as the system is, it’s the only way to protect life without opening the door for future decrees from an oppressive anti-life governing body if ever one is allowed to arise again.

To be clear, I can see why the second sentence can be confusing. I assumed the previous paragraphs would have made it clear, but based upon feedback it’s necessary to elaborate. Abortion is not a state issue because it’s not a health care issue. As noted before the paragraph above:

The right to live is granted to all Americans who choose to accept it. For those who are unable to express their choice, the Federalist Party stands for them. Babies in the womb have no voice to tell of their desire to live any more than a 3-month-old baby does. The question then becomes a matter of time and development; when do American and human rights begin? When does the “living person” clock start? Since any judgment declaring when life starts is arbitrary and impossible to definitively prove, we must take the safest stance of life beginning at conception.

With that understood, let’s look at this from a practical perspective so we can understand what’s at stake. Some of the most militant anti-abortionists would see a decree from the federal government as the right way to defend life. On a very temporary basis, it would be. However, doing so would be the rallying cry necessary for abortionists to take back power and reverse the national legislation.

Our stance is to take the same path that Roe v. Wade took. First, reverse Roe v. Wade. Then, allow legislation by a state to be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. Once affirmed there, we will then have a precedent. SCOTUS precedents cannot be quickly overturned the way federal legislation can (as we’ve learned all too well with the sustained existence of Roe v. Wade).

It should be noted that we will also join the fight for personhood. This is something that would end the debate once and for all. Unfortunately, taking that as the only path to stop abortions is risky. Social conservatives have been pushing for it for decades with no success. Culture isn’t getting more conservative, generally speaking. We will take up that mantle, but we’re not going to rely on a failed strategy to be the only method we’ll use to stop abortions. Every abortion we can stop is an American life saved. As much as we’d like to afford to be able to take the philosophical high horse. we’re not willing to bet a single life on being able to do what has never been done before.

It’s imperative that, as a party, we assess the situations the nation is in with proper intellectual analysis and practical application. Shooting from the hip and taking action that seems righteous on the surface can yield worse results than what we already face. For abortion to be stopped, we have to be strategic with our plan to save lives.

Comment List

  • Adam 25 / 04 / 2017

    If we are going to give power back to the localities we need to change our mentality on an issue that is becoming more apparent in the last few months. Judicial opinions should be based on the LAW not some previous flawed judge’s opinion ie precedence!

  • Marc Moore 03 / 05 / 2017

    I would imagine a good short term effort would be to show people the value of human life. The main reason this has been an issue is because the valuing of life isn’t there. Even back around the time of Roe v Wade it seemed like there were a lot of people who disagreed with it but that thought that banning wasn’t the answer. As much as I may disagree with them, these people still understood the value of human life and didn’t want abortion to become as mainstream as it has. Now it’s essentially “my body my choice” with the life of the baby almost completely disregarded. I’m not sure policywise how this would work, but it seems that if we’re trying to change the issue, we have to hit it at it’s heart, which is essentially that people need to start to value life enough to not throw around Abortion as a “right” in the first place.

  • Jonathan Melton 08 / 05 / 2017

    It is unequicocally true that life begins at conception. God’s Word makes it clear. It is not acceptable to allow states to differ on the issue of life. The goal must be complete abolition. This can be done by federal amendment, reversal of Roe, or the President unilaterally exercising his vested Executive power to uphold the Constitution’s prohibition against life being taken without due process. Regulation is not acceptable because it implies that abortion is permissible under restrictions set forth in the law.

Comments are closed.