Rick Perry: Abortion is a states’ rights issue

posted at 5:07 pm on July 28, 2011 by Allahpundit

A smart middle-ground play for independents, but I thought he was supposed to be the great evangelical hope. Last week he said he was “fine” with New York legalizing gay marriage before clarifying today that he’s not fine with gay marriage itself. (In fact, he supports a Federal Marriage Amendment.) Now this. Why would a social-conservative voter looking for a champion who has traction in the polls prefer him to, say, Bachmann?

Maybe Perry’s willing to shed some votes in Iowa in exchange for picking some up in New Hampshire.

Despite holding personal pro-life beliefs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry categorized abortion as a states’ rights issue today, saying that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it should be up to the states to decide the legality of the procedure.

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.’”…

The National Right to Life Committee responded to Perry’s categorization of abortion as a states’ rights issue in a statement, saying, “Our society has an obligation to enact laws that recognize and protect the smallest members of our human family. Prior to Roe, states had the ability to enact laws that extended full legal protection to unborn children. We look forward to the day when Roe v. Wade is changed, and the states will once again have the ability to pass legislation that fully protects mothers and their unborn children.”

I’m surprised the NRLC gave him cover on that. Granted, the immediate first step after Roe is overturned would be state laws restricting abortion, but I’ve never understood that to be the end point for pro-lifers, as Perry seems to suggest by invoking the Tenth Amendment. The goal is a Human Life Amendment or, at a minimum, a federal statute banning abortion coast-to-coast. If you believe abortion is murder, why on earth would you want to let any state choose to legalize it? Huckabee made that point succinctly during the 2008 campaign; watch the end of the clip below.

Maybe Perry’s position on this mirrors his position on gay marriage. His argument for the Federal Marriage Amendment is that it would require ratification by three-fourths of the states, so the process honors the federalist principle of the Tenth Amendment even though the FMA would trump it. He could make the same argument for the HLA, although (a) a hardcore believer in the Tenth Amendment presumably wouldn’t want to see the sovereignty of any state trumped, even if three-quarters of the other states agree, and (b) if he didn’t make the same argument for the HLA, he’d have to explain why he thinks gay marriage requires a national solution but abortion doesn’t.

But maybe none of this matters. Neither the HLA nor the FMA will ever pass, so all we’re doing is polishing credentials here — and his already have plenty of polish. The latest whispers from his advisors, incidentally, claim that he’ll be in by late August. In fact, he’s already nudging Fox about a spot in the August 11 debate.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Drilling down into Perry’s personal positions on DOMA has nothing to do with whether his belief in the constitution is grounded in reality or not.

gryphon202 on July 28, 2011 at 11:30 PM

That’s a red herring. If he’s for the “federalist” angle, I don’t see much room for supporting federal action in the form of DOMA. It’s an encroachment on state prerogatives.

ddrintn on July 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM

That’s a red herring. If he’s for the “federalist” angle, I don’t see much room for supporting federal action in the form of DOMA. It’s an encroachment on state prerogatives.

ddrintn on July 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Which is why the states themselves must approve it. Whether it’s a good idea or not has nothing to do with whether it’s constitutionally sound. Much tyranny throughout human history has been justified with “it’s a good idea…”

gryphon202 on July 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM

gryphon202 on July 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM

The problem is Perry seems to be heading for some inconsistencies, as pointed out in the post:

His argument for the Federal Marriage Amendment is that it would require ratification by three-fourths of the states, so the process honors the federalist principle of the Tenth Amendment even though the FMA would trump it. He could make the same argument for the HLA, although (a) a hardcore believer in the Tenth Amendment presumably wouldn’t want to see the sovereignty of any state trumped, even if three-quarters of the other states agree, and (b) if he didn’t make the same argument for the HLA, he’d have to explain why he thinks gay marriage requires a national solution but abortion doesn’t.

ddrintn on July 28, 2011 at 11:42 PM

The problem is Perry seems to be heading for some inconsistencies, as pointed out in the post:

ddrintn on July 28, 2011 at 11:42 PM

It’s entirely possible that Perry is telling people what he thinks they want to hear. As for myself, I think it’s a mistake to legislate such matters, but cultural understanding of The Constitution is so warped, school children can graduate from high school without understanding the difference between a constitutional amendment and an executive order.

gryphon202 on July 28, 2011 at 11:48 PM

It’s entirely possible that Perry is telling people what he thinks they want to hear.

gryphon202 on July 28, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Of course it is, along with the corollary: he’s avoiding saying anything that will get this or that group pissed off. AKA, having it both ways.

But this sort of stuff gets examined eventually, and I think that may be one reason that Perry is a little hesitant to jump in anytime soon. Once that white hot scrutiny spotlight hits him, the savior aura might start to fade.

ddrintn on July 28, 2011 at 11:52 PM

ddrintn on July 28, 2011 at 11:42 PM

I know you’re not as dim as you appear. You’re scared sh!#less of Perry and support Palin. There is nothing inconsistent with the amendment process and federalist principles,”(a) a hardcore believer in the Tenth Amendment presumably wouldn’t want to see the sovereignty of any state trumped, even if three-quarters of the other states agree…” is just bulls#!*. When Sarah endorses Perry, I hope you’ll seek professional help before you harm yourself.

cartooner on July 28, 2011 at 11:53 PM

But this sort of stuff gets examined eventually, and I think that may be one reason that Perry is a little hesitant to jump in anytime soon. Once that white hot scrutiny spotlight hits him, the savior aura might start to fade.

ddrintn on July 28, 2011 at 11:52 PM

People who support other candidates seem to take it really personally when I tell them that, good or bad, Sarah Palin is the only would-be or actual candidate right now whom I trust 100% to do what she says she will do. It’s not that I think any of the other candidates are necessarily fundamentally dishonest (although at least one certainly is, MITT!!!), but this is a perfect object lesson in why I always leave a little room somewhere in the back of my mind for doubt.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:15 AM

When If Sarah endorses Perry, I hope you’ll seek professional help before you harm yourself.

cartooner on July 28, 2011 at 11:53 PM

At least get it right, Tooner. Your plastic Fushigi ball isn’t showing you the future.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:17 AM

LOL! OK, but I was referring to ddrintn. I adore Palin, but some of her followers are insufferable.

cartooner on July 29, 2011 at 12:20 AM

LOL! OK, but I was referring to ddrintn. I adore Palin, but some of her followers are insufferable.

cartooner on July 29, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Some of her detractors are, too. Cuts both ways, as far as I’m concerned.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Really?

How about keeping one’s dick inside one’s pants so as to not impregnate?

Texas Gal on July 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Unless they’re sea horses-men can’t get pregnant. We can-so in the end the responsibility lies w/us.

annoyinglittletwerp on July 29, 2011 at 12:23 AM

I love it when you annoy people–they deserve it IMO. You fit right in here. A belated welcome to Texas!

cartooner on July 28, 2011 at 10:34 PM

I thank you, friend.
Speaking of which…I’m Barb.
*smiles*

annoyinglittletwerp on July 29, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Abortion is NOT a States rights issue.
It is a Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness Issue.

Abortion is the slaughter of living human beings. If there were no living human being, there would be no consideration of abortion.

The term “abortion” is merely a sanitized word to represent the murder, homicidal attack on another living human being.
Osama bin Laden was aborted by the US Navy Seals.

Well, at least in Obama’s case, he was a malevolent, demonic terrorist leader who slaughtered many people. In contrast, elective abortions kill innocent babies. That is objectionable.

al Qaeda operatives have been aborted by US soldiers. That’s actually a good thing.

In the case of standard, elective, induced abortions, it usually refers to new human beings being butchered, their lives terminated. These are innocent people who have committed no crime, yet they are violently assaulted, and their lives ended in any of several sadistic, violent methods, from chopping them to pieces, to pulling their bodies apart, ripping arms and legs out of their sockets, etc., to burning them alive via chemicals, to puncturing their skulls and suctioning the contents of their skulls via a suction device, collapsing their skull in on itself, to breaking bones, and more. These procedures also injure and kill women, more women than the pro-abortion health reporting agencies have acknowledged or revealed.

Abortions are also race and sex selective, with blacks being terminated in greater numbers in proportion to their population than other racial groups, and females being targeted for sex-selective abortions, which makes abortion even more anti-female, and anti-woman than people wish to admit, or even know. Abortion abuses, injures, and kills women, and also slaughters millions upon millions of new baby girls, as well as baby boys.

It is outrageous that anyone would think that considering abortion a states rights issue, for it is the sanctioning of violent assault, aggression against another human being. If people sanction, condone, and push abortion, then they must be consistent and admit that the selective oppression, rounding up, and butchering of Jews is right on, and a States Issue. The same for the slaughter, or even enslavement, of blacks.

Hey! If you think abortion is A-Okay, then so also must the targeting, and slaughtering of senior citizens, Chinese people, Vegetarians, Lebanese, and people from Tallahassee Florida.

After all, who shall live, and who shall die, who shall have rights, and who shall not have rights, is completely arbitrary, and anyone can be the targeted for death group of the week.

I choose killing all those who like abortion, support abortion, and commit abortion. Let THEM be the targeted group for the week, since they think abortion is such a wonderful, lovely thing. You’ll see how quickly THEY oppose abortion when THEY are the target. As long as someone else is earmarked for termination, as long as it is not them, they think it is grand, for they can earn money committing the slaughter of innocent new babies, and they can push their violent, blood-and-death agenda on others, and they can get the support they want from pro-aborts/slaughter of baby lovers for their elections and for their funding.

The stupid, idiotic use of the word “person,” to deny a baby the right to life says more about the maliciousness of the person or persons using it, than it says about the baby targeted for abortion. In point of fact, the biological beginning of a human being’s life IS also the start of a new living person. There is no separation except in the eyes and hearts of those who wish to move the goal post, using totally arbitrary criteria, meaning, they make it up as they go, to sanction or justify their violent, vile act of support for abortion.

No. Abortion is the violent aggression and butchering of new human beings. It should NOT be allowed, it should be outlawed, and severe penalties should be provided and carried out for anyone committing abortion, and for those who push it with their brain dead, arrogant, scientifically inaccurate, and false claims.

William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 12:29 AM

No. Abortion is the violent aggression and butchering of new human beings. It should NOT be allowed, it should be outlawed, and severe penalties should be provided and carried out for anyone committing abortion, and for those who push it with their brain dead, arrogant, scientifically inaccurate, and false claims.

William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 12:29 AM

What you are suggesting is legislative tyrrany as sure as anything the libbies cook up. Murder is prosecuted at the state level, and absent a constitutional amendment, so should abortion be.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:32 AM

No. Abortion is the violent aggression and butchering of new human beings. It should NOT be allowed, it should be outlawed, and severe penalties should be provided and carried out for anyone committing abortion, and for those who push it with their brain dead, arrogant, scientifically inaccurate, and false claims.

William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 12:29 AM

What you are suggesting is legislative tyrrany as sure as anything the libbies cook up. Murder is prosecuted at the state level, and absent a constitutional amendment, so should abortion be.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton has led to Federal and State tyranny. Now millions of new human beings have been slaughtered, and more each day, and each year, and so on, and people do nothing. Pro-lifers are painted as violent, yet they are not violent, otherwise every single abortuary would have been destroyed, all abortionists, their staff, and all supporters of abortion, would be pushing up daisies, and no one would be without fear before they attempt to kill another new human being.

The tyranny is so offensive in that it provides the full force of the government, the courts, and the police to kill each and every individual, tiny, innocent human being.

In the past people would go to Australia to hunt the Aboriginies because people believed they did not have life worthy of life. Men, women, children, and babies were executed as they were hunted like game.

Jews were characterized as vermin, rats running into and out of sewers, causing disease and calamity among the German people. They, and handicapped persons and children with illnesses and birth defects, were depicted as life unworthy of life, and targeted for extermination.

Blacks slaves were considered property, having no rights, even in free states to which they fled (Dredd Scott decision).

Since when does anyone get away with butchering babies via the many methods of abortion, ending their lives, and that’s A-okay, not a bit deal, and should’t be a big deal for Republicans, as at least one commenter said under this thread?

Those are US citizens, and US citizens allow a person or persons to violently attack and slaugther this person, and if you try to stop such violence and murder, you are arrested and labelled a troublemaker, violent, anti-choice, and so on. No matter, it is right and just to work to end abortion, for abortion is the wrong, and ending it is right and just.

You’d think that Conservatives would support the banning of abortion, for millions of potential voters, wage earners, and Albert Einsteins, Jonas Salks, Werner von Brauns, and Louis Pasteurs are chopped up, burned, and so forth, during abortions.

No, it is not judicial tyranny to ban abortion, any more than it is just to prevent another Holocaust against the Jews, or rampant slavery, or the hunting of Aborigines as prey.

William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Adendum to last paragraph, posted – William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 12:50 AM – from above:

No, it is not legislative tyranny to ban abortion, any more than it is just to prevent another Holocaust against the Jews, or rampant slavery, or the hunting of Aborigines as prey.

William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 12:55 AM

No, it is not judicial tyranny to ban abortion, any more than it is just to prevent another Holocaust against the Jews, or rampant slavery, or the hunting of Aborigines as prey.

William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 12:50 AM

What is just is not necessarily legal, just as what is legal is not necessarily just. We are a nation of laws, not men. That is why I share your outrage at abortion, but not your desperate desire to sacrifice freedom to stop it. If we are not free to be immoral, we are not truly free at all.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:55 AM

If we are not free to be immoral, we are not truly free at all.

Murder, whether homicide or abortion (a cute legal term for homicide), is not a states rights issue.

AZ_Redneck on July 29, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Drilling down into Perry’s personal positions on DOMA has nothing to do with whether his belief in the constitution is grounded in reality or not.

gryphon202 on July 28, 2011 at 11:30 PM

That’s a red herring. If he’s for the “federalist” angle, I don’t see much room for supporting federal action in the form of DOMA. It’s an encroachment on state prerogatives.

ddrintn on July 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM

DOMA is no more an infringement on state power than the First or Second Amendments are. If an amendment is passed it is not federal power unconstitutionally trumping state power, it is federal power constitutionally trumping state power- and that makes all the difference.

Browncoatone on July 29, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Murder, whether homicide or abortion (a cute legal term for homicide), is not a states rights issue.

AZ_Redneck on July 29, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Au Contraire. Murder is almost universally prosecuted by the states — not the federales.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 1:04 AM

No, it is not judicial tyranny to ban abortion, any more than it is just to prevent another Holocaust against the Jews, or rampant slavery, or the hunting of Aborigines as prey.

William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 12:50 AM

What is just is not necessarily legal, just as what is legal is not necessarily just. We are a nation of laws, not men. That is why I share your outrage at abortion, but not your desperate desire to sacrifice freedom to stop it. If we are not free to be immoral, we are not truly free at all.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:55 AM

gryphon202,

Rape, murder, kidnapping, pedophilia, assault and battery, are just a few examples of outlawed behavior.

You stated, “If we are not to free to be immoral, then we are not truly free at all.”

If that is true, then people should be allowed to rape, murder, assault children, attack anyone they wish, engage in home invasions, and more, without any repercussions, without law enforcement intervening, and with not punitive damage or retribution.

since when is it okay to rape and murder?

Abortion is the slaughter, the savage, rampant murder of living human beings. Justice Blackman’s words, commenting on the Roe v Wade decision, speaks volumes to his ignorance, lack of scientific knowledge, ignorance of facts, etc., yet he, and his fellow justices erred on the side of death – abortion, rather than erring on the side of life.

The case is so full of legal and scientific holes that it should have been tossed into the HAZMAT control canister and totally eradicated forever.

William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 1:12 AM

What you are suggesting is legislative tyrrany as sure as anything the libbies cook up. Murder is prosecuted at the state level, and absent a constitutional amendment, so should abortion be.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Legislative tyranny? Oh, please, spare me. Abortion violates every freedom guaranteed by the constitution. You cannot exactly have freedom of speech if some stabs you in the head with a pair of scissors and sucks your brains out through a tube before you can ever learn to speak. How is that not a violation of any right you could ever have? How can you exercise any of your rights if your dead before you can ever enjoy them? Its constitutional to allow each state to decide and implement the necessary punishment but neither state nor federal government can allow the violation of these guaranteed rights. Ask any communist, there is no greater weapon to ending someone’s freedom of speech than killing them.

NeverLiberal on July 29, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Legislative tyranny? Oh, please, spare me. Abortion violates every freedom guaranteed by the constitution. You cannot exactly have freedom of speech if some stabs you in the head with a pair of scissors and sucks your brains out through a tube before you can ever learn to speak. How is that not a violation of any right you could ever have? How can you exercise any of your rights if your dead before you can ever enjoy them? Its constitutional to allow each state to decide and implement the necessary punishment but neither state nor federal government can allow the violation of these guaranteed rights. Ask any communist, there is no greater weapon to ending someone’s freedom of speech than killing them.

NeverLiberal on July 29, 2011 at 1:14 AM

And I am not at all against states choosing to prosecute abortion as murder. It’s been tried. The problem is not that the states won’t do it; the problem is that the federal government unconstitutionally interferes with the states’ ability to do so.

In summary, the constitution lets the federal government only do what is enumerated, and the rest is left to the states. Prosecution of murder, abortion or otherwise, IS NOT enumerated to the federal government. Sorry champ, but it’s no good to rat on the libbies’ disdain for the constitution when you turn around and become a fair-weather constitutionalist yourself.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Abortion is the slaughter, the savage, rampant murder of living human beings. Justice Blackman’s words, commenting on the Roe v Wade decision, speaks volumes to his ignorance, lack of scientific knowledge, ignorance of facts, etc., yet he, and his fellow justices erred on the side of death – abortion, rather than erring on the side of life.

The case is so full of legal and scientific holes that it should have been tossed into the HAZMAT control canister and totally eradicated forever.

William2006 on July 29, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Don’t lecture me on what abortion means to you, Bill. I’ve driven three-and-a-half hours one-way MULTIPLE TIMES to march in front of my state’s only abortion clinic. I don’t need convincing that abortion is a crime against humanity. I’ve done more than my fair share to stop it — and not exactly in my backyard.

Tyranny always seems like a good idea to those who propose it. If abortion = murder, and states prosecute murder, than states should be free to prosecute abortion as murder. PERIOD. This is not a case in which I feel comfortable giving the federales more power — PERIOD.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 1:20 AM

You people are so up-in-arms about the federal government stealing your paychecks and usurping more and more power with each election cycle, but when it comes to the evils of abortion (which is absolutely among the greatest evils in the world today), your solution is to get a law passed that will give the federales more power over individual lives. Am I really the only commenter here who senses a disconnect in that way of thinking?

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM

In summary, the constitution lets the federal government only do what is enumerated, and the rest is left to the states. Prosecution of murder, abortion or otherwise, IS NOT enumerated to the federal government. Sorry champ, but it’s no good to rat on the libbies’ disdain for the constitution when you turn around and become a fair-weather constitutionalist yourself.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Sorry champ, but your arguments are weak. I plainly said that the prosecution of criminals should be left to the state. Whats so very obvious is that abortion violates freedoms that are guaranteed by the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms for instance. Neither the state nor the Federal government are allowed to prohibit that right. No state is allowed to infringe upon a law-abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms. Killing that person infringes upon their right to keep and bear arms. You cannot exactly exercise your right to keep and bear arms if your dead.

NeverLiberal on July 29, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Exactly what kind of illogical leap do you have to make to go from the rights of US states to the behavior of another nation?

Uncle Sams Nephew on July 28, 2011 at 11:29 PM

In case the nuance of a sarc tag escapes you, let me be forthright: those who believe it is murder and want to impose one law on all States shouldn’t stop at our country’s borders, but should seek to impose their will on the entire world. Or are the Chinese babies less important to you?

John the Libertarian on July 29, 2011 at 1:51 AM

Wait, wait, wait.

How in the world can Perry phrase this as a Tenth Amendment issue, and then turn around on the gay rights issue and say he supports a FEDERAL Marriage Amendment?

Scott H on July 28, 2011 at 5:23 PM

What part of “2/3 of the states ratify Constitutional amendments” don’t people get? Amendments are not crammed down peoples’ throats. The states have a huge say. I think is in perfect keeping with states’ rights and the 10th. If 2/3 of the states pass an amendment, the other 1/3 has agreed, by being a member of the Union, to abide by that decision. Duh.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 29, 2011 at 5:39 AM

Aslans Girl on July 29, 2011 at 5:39 AM

Ack! Not “2/3″, duh (lol), 3/4. :rolleseyes at self:

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 29, 2011 at 5:42 AM

What part of “2/3 of the states ratify Constitutional amendments” don’t people get?

Aslans Girl on July 29, 2011 at 5:39 AM

Exactly. As Perry said, You either believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t. Too many “conservatives” really just want to see their ideas enshrined in Washington so they can lord it over Americans. That’s not in the Constitution. We are a confederation of independent states. I’m as pro-life as it gets but in America once the usurpation of the law by SCOTUS is overturned New York and California will be free to keep killing babies while most states will outlaw abortion.

The fact Perry wants to devolve power from Washington is his most important quality.

rcl on July 29, 2011 at 5:53 AM

What is just is not necessarily legal, just as what is legal is not necessarily just. We are a nation of laws, not men. That is why I share your outrage at abortion, but not your desperate desire to sacrifice freedom to stop it. If we are not free to be immoral, we are not truly free at all.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:55 AM

WOW! That was beautifully said.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2011 at 7:09 AM

Sorry champ, but your arguments are weak. I plainly said that the prosecution of criminals should be left to the state. Whats so very obvious is that abortion violates freedoms that are guaranteed by the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms for instance. Neither the state nor the Federal government are allowed to prohibit that right. No state is allowed to infringe upon a law-abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms. Killing that person infringes upon their right to keep and bear arms. You cannot exactly exercise your right to keep and bear arms if your dead.

NeverLiberal on July 29, 2011 at 1:38 AM

My arguments are grounded in fact. The federal government does not, as a rule, prosecute murder. States do. There is a reason for that. “Abortion should be illegal” is the same kind of normative thinking that gives rise to idiocy like “Happy Meal toys should be illegal” and “Assault weapons should be illegal.”

If abortion is murder, and I can’t stress enough that I believe it is, states should be free to prosecute abortion as murder. Otherwise conservatives are guilty of a kind of selective outrage I don’t wish to be a part of. The federal government doesn’t need more power of any kind, no matter how well-intentioned.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Maybe the man ought to take that into consideration before he gets to that point.

Texas Gal on July 28, 2011 at 9:30 PM

You missed the point of my post. Many men feel disenfranchised in the process so they don’t give a rats a$$. If a man feels that way he is never likely to think about where he should or should not stick his tool.

NotCoach on July 29, 2011 at 8:37 AM

I know you’re not as dim as you appear. You’re scared sh!#less of Perry and support Palin. … When Sarah endorses Perry, I hope you’ll seek professional help before you harm yourself.

cartooner on July 28, 2011 at 11:53 PM

I’m not “scared shitless” of any candidate, and unlike you apparently I’m likewise not so far up any candidate’s ass that i can’t see his/her faults. Don’t think for a second that godlike Perry’s inconsistencies couldn’t be shown up and exploded in one 10 minute section of interview or debate.

ddrintn on July 29, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Exactly what kind of illogical leap do you have to make to go from the rights of US states to the behavior of another nation?

Uncle Sams Nephew on July 28, 2011 at 11:29 PM

In case the nuance of a sarc tag escapes you, let me be forthright: those who believe it is murder and want to impose one law on all States shouldn’t stop at our country’s borders, but should seek to impose their will on the entire world. Or are the Chinese babies less important to you?

John the Libertarian on July 29, 2011 at 1:51 AM

And if it is murder why would one be any more willing from a moral standpoint to leave it up to a 10th Amendment solution than one would be willing to do so with the issue of slavery? As others have pointed out in the thread, this is Perry punting on sticky social issues.

ddrintn on July 29, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Strategically, the problem with Roe v Wade is that it elevated abortion to the the national level, making it an issue where one side has to win, the other lose. This turned it into an argument of extremes. No compromise.

Far better it would have been to keep it at the state level, resulting in a wide variety of treatments. Under this scenario, we could have struggled more temperately, campaigning for the lives of the unborn at local levels. People can be moved if they are not embattled, and acting locally would have been persuasive. Perry is right.

Ultimately, the showdown is still in the future and the abortionists will lose. I agree completely with James Taranto’s analysis about the “Roe effect” – essentially, pro-lifers are having 2+ kids who typically embrace their views while pro-abortionists have less than 2 kids, if any.

Weird situation: pro-lifers are trying to save kids who would likely vote against their point of view, while pro-abortionists are killing kids who would vote for theirs.

Gotta love the pro-lifers.

Cricket624 on July 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM

You people are so up-in-arms about the federal government stealing your paychecks and usurping more and more power with each election cycle, but when it comes to the evils of abortion (which is absolutely among the greatest evils in the world today), your solution is to get a law passed that will give the federales more power over individual lives. Am I really the only commenter here who senses a disconnect in that way of thinking?

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM

I’m backing you up here.

As much as I hate abortion, it is a state’s right issue. You’re absolutely correct that if you make it a federal issue, you’re giving more federal power over people’s lives than the Constitution allows.

Conservative Samizdat on July 29, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Since states are no longer allowed to decide for themselves to treat black people like property (and I’m glad they aren’t), they shouldn’t be allowed to continue treating unborn babies like property.

States should have the right to choose whether or not to execute criminals who have been convicted of horrifying capital offenses against their citizens. But no innocent, helpless unborn child in any of the 50 states deserves to be executed by abortion and disposed of like trash.

Slavery and abortion are such terrible offenses against humanity, they shouldn’t be permitted in any U.S. state.

KyMouse on July 29, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Gov. Gardasil flip-flopped on gay marriage. I guess that’s another issue that doesn’t suit him.

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.’”…

Give him time, pro-lifers. Perry’s like the weather.

Rae on July 29, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Perry has this EXACTLY right, and I’m baffled as to why conservatives haven’t seen the light on this before; It’s CONSISTENT, it’s CONSTITUTIONAL, and it’s CONSERVATIVE.

I’m amused at the confusion among conservatives, but I’m not happy about it. It’s high time someone actually points out the hypocrisy among “constitutional conservatives.” Constitutionalism for thee but not for me? Oh, ho.

mountainaires on July 29, 2011 at 12:28 PM

hat is why I share your outrage at abortion, but not your desperate desire to sacrifice freedom to stop it. If we are not free to be immoral, we are not truly free at all.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:55 AM

Well said!

Let’s use a bit different wording that may communicate better to some here…

“If you had not been given the Free Will that allows you to sin, you’d never be able to choose Christ as your Savior…”

OnlyOrange on July 29, 2011 at 1:06 PM

You don’t have free will if you’re dead.

viking01 on July 29, 2011 at 1:09 PM

You don’t have free will if you’re dead.

viking01 on July 29, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I don’t have free will if you impose your religious or moral beliefs upon me either…

BTW, I don’t support abortion — but I do support freedom and liberty…

OnlyOrange on July 29, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I don’t have free will if you impose your religious or moral beliefs upon me either…

BTW, I don’t support abortion — but I do support freedom and liberty…

OnlyOrange on July 29, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Interesting contradiction and a familiar Destiny argument of the 1930s.

At what point does another human’s freedom and liberty become less important than yours and thus subject to killing? Please don’t merely argue laws because remember that Dachau was legal.

viking01 on July 29, 2011 at 1:51 PM

If we are not free to be immoral, we are not truly free at all.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 12:55 AM

Wow… How very sad. We were instructed not to make liberty a cloak for malice…

Our freedom to be immoral was not given us by the Constitution of the US. It was given us by our Creator, the Almighty God. Our man made laws are made as a way to curb the actions of those who would chose to be immoral if not for the unpleasant consequences WE as a civilized people would impose upon them. Do you suggest we do away with all our laws? Because every law restricts someone’s ‘freedom’ to do what they want. If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t need any laws. People are still free to be immoral, as we can see with the vast populations in our prisons, but they are not free to go unpunished for their immorality. Just as we will not be free of punishment for violating the laws of God even though we are free to violate them.

And yes, I know, it should be prosecuted at the state level like other murder is. Fine, prosecute it there, but it must be against the law in every corner of our nation, just as murder of the born is. Else, we are a nation of immoral people. All of us, for tolerating such great evil by allowing it to go unpunished anywhere in our ONE nation.

BTW, I don’t support abortion — but I do support freedom and liberty for other people to kill their children.

OnlyOrange on July 29, 2011 at 1:33 PM

That’s kind of icky, isn’t it? Do you support freedom and liberty for people to have sex with children? How about freedom and liberty to torture their pets? Hold or traffic in sex slaves? Or is it only freedom and liberty to kill their defenseless unborn children you are supportive of?

It is so clear that we are no longer the nation our Founders established. They founded this nation on principals derived from appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions. Not anymore… Now, we won’t impose the laws of the Supreme Judge of the world and instead, appeal to the Supreme Court or the vote of immoral people. It is so clear to anyone with eyes to see that Divine Providence is not protecting us any longer. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

We are the ones Saint Paul warned about in Romans 1. God have mercy.

pannw on July 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Oh, and as to Perry…well, I was willing to forgive (if not forget) his over-reaching and horrific lapse in judgment with the immoral imposition of the Gardisil vaccine on all school girls,and still vote for him if he were the nominee, but more and more, I’m not liking what I hear. If he keeps this up, I might not feel compelled to go to the polls if he’s the nominee. Yes, I know, I’d be handing the election to that evil Obama. blah blah… News flash. Obama isn’t the cause of our problems, he’s the result of them. I wan’t a clear alternative. Good vs evil… not just a little evil vs evil.

pannw on July 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Exactly what kind of illogical leap do you have to make to go from the rights of US states to the behavior of another nation?

Uncle Sams Nephew on July 28, 2011 at 11:29 PM

In case the nuance of a sarc tag escapes you, let me be forthright: those who believe it is murder and want to impose one law on all States shouldn’t stop at our country’s borders, but should seek to impose their will on the entire world. Or are the Chinese babies less important to you?

John the Libertarian on July 29, 2011 at 1:51 AM

You do realize the only way this argument makes a lick of sense is if China becomes a state. Yes, states have less sovereignty than foreign countries. The states had to give up a certain amount of sovereignty to join the union. The Constitution simply defines the areas where states gave up that sovereignty, and the 10th Amendment simply clarifies that the states still retain their sovereignty in areas not specifically mentioned.

I expect a president who opposes abortion to work within the system of government we have to … work against abortion. Laws against abortion need to be passed by individual states, but it’s not like the federal government has no influence or position on the subject.

Until individual states have the power to outlaw abortion, it is NOT purely a states’ rights issue, no matter how much you wish it could be or believe it should be.

tom on July 29, 2011 at 3:05 PM

There is also the 5th Amendment whereby “nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law… but in the case of a judicial monster like Blackmun emanating from his penumbra the law can be warped into “don’t question the Reich why the Jewish neighbors keep disappearing it’s a privacy matter.”

viking01 on July 29, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Big mistake for him to be trotting out social issues again. That’s not at all how the GOP won in 2010.

Labamigo on July 29, 2011 at 5:56 PM

The Supreme Court has held that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion. A state legislature doesn’t have the power to decide what federal constitutional rights its citizens can exercise.

Labamigo on July 29, 2011 at 5:56 PM

The Supreme Court has held that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion. A state legislature doesn’t have the power to decide what federal constitutional rights its citizens can exercise.

Labamigo on July 29, 2011 at 5:56 PM

And the supreme court doesn’t have the power to decide what rights exist in the constitution that aren’t expressly spelled out. Try again.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Slavery and abortion are such terrible offenses against humanity, they shouldn’t be permitted in any U.S. state.

KyMouse on July 29, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Then abortion should be treated as slavery was, and an amendment should be proposed and ratified. I have absolutely no problem with that. What I have a problem with is a legislative solution to a problem that the federal legislature shouldn’t even be addressing.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 7:20 PM

pannw on July 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Thanks for editing my post to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say, without at least the honesty to line through them to show you you’d edited them…

And you want to lecture me on morals, much less try to ram your morals down my throat by FEDERAL law…

My position on abortion is simply that it is between the woman and her God, and she’ll be held accountable. I’m not god, and I certainly don’t want the FEDERAL government in the middle of that.

We’ve seen a real circus the last few days with this debt limit thing — I don’t want these clowns doing their self-serving dance trying to tell me what to believe or what is moral. That is between me and my God, and I’ll answer for it.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Amen! Or what infuriates me even more is activist judges trying to twist the existing Constitution to and extend it to cover their own views…

OnlyOrange on July 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM

OnlyOrange on July 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Actually, look again. I did strike through your elipses. You are the one who put them there. So, I just carried on with the thought that is so obviously your view. Am I wrong? Isn’t that exactly what you are saying? If you can’t stand to even see it in print, how on earth can you believe it? If you view my position on abortion as ramming my orals down your throat, how do you get off claiming you are not pro-abortion? Again, why is this particular crime off limits while others are not? You seem like a very morally confused person. Sorry if the truth hurts, but I will not stop speaking it. When you say you are ‘personally against abortion’ but in the same sentence state, ‘but I’m for freedom and liberty’, the obviously conclusion is you are for freedom and liberty to abort, aka murder unborn human beings. I don’t have to put the words in your mouth. That sour taste in it is your own belief coming back on you.

pannw on July 29, 2011 at 9:47 PM

I never cease to be amazed how many jump straight to the Bill of Rights yet never notice the Preamble which clearly defines the purpose of the Constitution. “…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
viking01 on July 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Those are the first words in the Constitution. These are the LAST words in the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When you use the power of the federal government to specifically forbid the right of local self-rule, you have turned the Constitution upside-down.

logis on July 30, 2011 at 10:01 AM

As a conservative, I agree with him 100%. You can’t have it both ways.

kg598301 on July 30, 2011 at 5:00 PM

annw on July 29, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Thank you for confirming that you edited my post to make it say something that I clearly did not say…

As to the rest of your post, and your “psychoanalyzing” of me … it’s so very far off base that it doesn’t even deserve further comment.

OnlyOrange on July 30, 2011 at 5:17 PM

logis on July 30, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I’ll just say that the Founders made it a habit to get to their point quickly knowing that many would happen along only too willing or uninspired to skip to the last chapter hoping no one would notice.

viking01 on July 30, 2011 at 6:58 PM

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When you use the power of the federal government to specifically forbid the right of local self-rule, you have turned the Constitution upside-down.

logis on July 30, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I’ll just say that the Founders made it a habit to get to their point quickly knowing that many would happen along only too willing or uninspired to skip to the last chapter hoping no one would notice.
viking01 on July 30, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Excellent point: If repeating the same message over and over and over again – in a five-page-long document – is too complicated for some people, then no Amendment can possibly correct their endless misinterpretation of the obvious.

Seriously, if they had written this any more plainly it would simply say: “READ THESE WORDS!!”

But, as you point out, even that wouldn’t have helped in the slightest. Anyone who knows how to read knows how to read; while anyone who thinks that the United States Constitution has anything whatsoever to do with abortion cannot possibly be convinced of anything based on meaningless squiggles on paper.

logis on July 30, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Anyone who knows how to read knows how to read; while anyone who thinks that the United States Constitution has anything whatsoever to do with abortion cannot possibly be convinced of anything based on meaningless squiggles on paper.

logis on July 30, 2011 at 9:46 PM

It’s probably a simple matter of whether you have lost your mind or are trying to justify a past indiscretion hopeful no-one else knows where the body is buried!

viking01 on July 31, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3