false. the right to choose is a constitutionally-protected right. it is NOT a state issue.
sigh you really need to take some classes on this.
"There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.”
“Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.”
question: suppose your wife or daughter was raped by a family member. would you force her to carry the fetus to term? because ron paul, sharron angle, christine o'donnell, joe miller, and ken buck all would.
so much for smaller government.
this is the thing with people like you that have weak arguments. You are NOT concerned one iota, that the fetus is human, You are more concerned with trying to find out if I am human. What do the circumstances have to do with the RIGHTS of the CONCEIVED????
We can be in agreement that the circumstances of the conception were by force and are tragic. It is also true the woman's rights have been violated. But like I continually say to you, you don't go far enough. You only scratch the surface. Why don't you ask, who is responsible for violating the woman? The child is not. Why are you all for punishing the child?
the discussion was about Tea Party being about the following -
There is no separation between church and state
the discussion was not about one person, I was asking for the policy that made that statement true.
keep trying though
false again. gays are entitled to equal protection under the law as provided by the 14th amendment. leave it up to the churches and almost no gays could be married (unless they found a rabbi, gotta love judaism for its progressiveness).
agreed gays deserve the same rights as anyone else. Show me where I said otherwise. Your inability to understand my simple statements is not my fault. It lies with you. Many gays have already been married by churches. Also you cannot force a church to preform a service.
did you not read the op? i clearly mentioned toomey. he voted FOR a constitutional BAN on gay marriage.
you are out of your element.
if by out of your element you mean I do not misrepresent others policies like you do, then you are correct. I've already caught you redhanded saying you agree with Ron Paul a lot, when your actions say otherwise. Now the lie is I do not want gays to have equal rights when in fact I do. What's the agenda here? Keep throwing falsehoods in hopes something will stick?
You're worthless and weak, down and give me 20.
You lost me Buck. It's pretty late and I'm pretty baked but I thought we were talking about you playing the race card. It's getting really old and weak IMO, that's all I'm saying.
