I believe you have the right to your own body except when the state says otherwise

[jackfaire]

I am not going to paint all Libertarians with the same brush but so far Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano both believe the Federal governement should repeal Roe V Wade and let the states decide on Abortion rights.

However both have also said that what we do with our bodies should be the right of the individual.

It seems to me that the way it works in their minds is as follows,

An Individual's rights trump Federal rights but the State's rights trump an individual's rights.

I say that because they both believe states should be able to pass laws on abortions outlawing them.

Judge Andy makes that statement while at the same time arguing that a mother has the right to determine what happens to her body and to that of her child.

In my mind you can't have it both ways. It seems they just don't like the federal government and would prefer states have all of the power and don't really care about individuals but saying they do gets Ron votes.

[HYHYBT]

Something like that. As I understand it, the idea isn't so much that there are things the government should have no say over, but that as much as possible should be controlled as locally as possible. Once you get down to, say, a city, there's pretty much no limit to what their system would let people outlaw.

[jackfaire]

And I believe they truly believe like they say that the States should have control over the rights of the individual but at least Judge Andy says that "We're allowed to be individuals. We have the natural right to control our bodies. The government has no right to make decisions for us and thus infringe upon this sacred right"

Quote taken from his book 'Lies the Government Told you' P 135

He says this right to our own bodies is covered in the constitution. Earlier though he accuses the Supreme Court of judicial Activism for their decisions on Roe VS Wade. However if as he says he believes that the right to make decisions for ourselves concerning our own bodies and those of our children is in the constitution then it was not judicial activism but rather the Supreme Court defending the constitutional rights of the citizens of the US by ruling unconstitutional laws against abortion.

It seems like he wants it both ways he wants us as Individuals to make any and all decisions concerning ourselves but only so long as it's a decision he agrees with.

It just seems dangerously wrong for them to run around campaigning "We believe in your rights as an individual vote for me" when really it's "We believe in your rights as an individual oh wait you made a decision of which we do not approve sorry you can't do that"

[bara]

If an individual state is able to ban abortions then people will either have them illegally or simply go to another state to have one.
Im not a big fan of abortions in general, but I understand why a woman would have one and can see no reason to ban them. In fact I would go as far as saying there are times when an abortion is in the best interest of the woman and perhaps even the child for economic, medical, and psychological reasons.

I used to be a pro-lifer until I became more educated in regards to abortions. My views on the world have become more 'liberal' as Ive gained knowledge and experience.

[AdminAssistant]

Ron Paul may be a libertarian, but he's also a pastor and running for the GOP nomination, so there's that. I believe Paul's view on it comes down to, "Yes, we all have the right to do what we want with our bodies, but when you have another life inside of you, you don't have the right to mess with that." Or....something.

Honestly, going state-by-state is a terrible idea. Frankly, states need less power, not more.

[guywithashovel]

I caught part of the GOP debate the other night (I think it was the South Carolina one), and Ron Paul was going back and forth with Rick Santorum about this. Santorum was harping about how "Ron Paul's pro-life voting record was about 50%, which is close to what Harry Reid's is," and Paul defended himself by saying that he thought the states should handle this.

Honestly, it does seem that Paul is trying to pander to both sides on this, but then again, politicians do that for the most part. He doesn't want to scare off the people who stand outside abortion clinics with huge pictures of chopped up babies, so he says he opposes abortion, but he tries to keep the libertarians who think this should be an individual right on his side, so he says that he merely thinks the states should handle it. It's a lot like those people who go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to say that they are "both pro-life and pro-choice." Just trying to appeal to both sides.

[jackfaire]

Honestly, going state-by-state is a terrible idea. Frankly, states need less power, not more.

*nods* My issue with it is that the Federal government is full of representatives from a wider range of beliefs. A state tends to more likely hold the same views on topics thus you get less diversity and more "we will mandate our morals not yours"

Also I believe an individual's rights should always trump State's and Federal rights.

Yes, we all have the right to do what we want with our bodies, but when you have another life inside of you, you don't have the right to mess with that." Or....something.

This part I wonder about. He supposedly supports Judge Andy enough that he wrote the Foreword to his book. In the book Judge Andy talks about he feels it is the parents right to deny their children access to life saving treatments even in cases of terminal illness. This is another thing that seems to contradict the anti Abortion argument, "You can do anything you want to your body unless it's a baby inside of you but you can let your children die if you don't believe in the medicine that could save their lives."

I am not saying that part is Ron's stance but it is touted as a Libertarian stance by Judge Andy and feels kind of all over the place. Like someone picking and choosing.

"I believe in the rights of an individual except for hmmm let's see column A, D, and H all disgust me so you don't have the right to those."

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

*nods* My issue with it is that the Federal government is full of representatives from a wider range of beliefs. A state tends to more likely hold the same views on topics thus you get less diversity and more "we will mandate our morals not yours"

Also I believe an individual's rights should always trump State's and Federal rights.

This is it right here. If the states had the powers to mandate anything and everything, then you would get all kinds of crazy stuff going on: Sonogram laws in Texas, hardcore Immigration laws in Arizona, statewide bans on abortion in Kansas, Creationism in public schools in Kentucky, A banning of all mosques/Sharia law in Oklahoma and so on and so forth.

Abortion would cease to exist in many of the Republican leading states.

You might notice that EVERY SINGLE LAW I mentioned above, along with many others, were actually passed by GOP legislatures over the past two years, only to be struck down or blocked in court for a variety of reasons.

If the states had the ultimate power, they could veto or otherwise override these court decisions by whatever means necessary.

It's not that far fetched, as scary as that may be.

Newt Gingrich, current GOP Presidential nominee, said he would override the FEDERAL SUPREME COURT on decisions he did not agree with. And of course this comes from someone who claims to be a defender of the constitution.

I think the overarching principle of the Napolitano view is that it should be "majority rules, all the time". Therefore if a majority of voters in a state are Christians and want prayer in public schools, than so be it. If they want no abortions under any circumstances, so be it. If they want to ban Mosques and "Sharia Law", so be it.

It should be noted if this model had been strictly adhered to, many Southern states might well still have racial segregation laws as, at the time of the civil rights movement, a majority of voters in those states still supported segregation.

[bara]

If the states had the ultimate power, they could veto or otherwise override these court decisions by whatever means necessary.

It's not that far fetched, as scary as that may be.

Newt Gingrich, current GOP Presidential nominee, said he would override the FEDERAL SUPREME COURT on decisions he did not agree with. And of course this comes from someone who claims to be a defender of the constitution.

Damn those pesky checks and balance systems our forefathers sneakily slipped into the constitution.
What were they thinking? I mean its not like we fought a war because of a supreme lack of representation and monarchic rule.

[smileyeagle1021]

Honestly, going state-by-state is a terrible idea. Frankly, states need less power, not more.

And, there is reasons for that other than just the ones mentioned so far.
Can you imagine how hard it would be to conduct business in this country (or with this country) if every state or even county or city had different laws that you had to comply with, sometimes even being contradictory?
We are already seeing that in Utah on a small scale, as it stands now anti-discrimination laws are handled on a county by county basis, and the company I work for is having a hell of a time because of it.
In Salt Lake County there is to be no discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Also in Salt Lake County, companies are encouraged (although not required) to provide the same benefits to same sex couples as they do to married heterosexual couples (in spite of Amendment 3 limitations, the county has said they will take the heat for any potential Amendment 3 violations). In Carbon County, where our second call center is located says that anti-discrimination policies should only cover race, gender, religion, ethnicity, and nation of origin (assuming a legal citizen), that a company may provide additional protections, but the county will not assist in enforcing anything but those ones they consider to be "real" discrimination. Oh, and their policy on domestic partner benefits is "refer to Amendment 3"... well amendment 3 is incredibly vague on what a private company's restrictions are (very clear on government restrictions, but doesn't really address private business). So, they have this problem where in Salt Lake they are being told that they HAVE to provide these protections and they should provide these benefits, but in Carbon County they are being told that they will get no assistance in insuring those protections are offered and that they are out on the limb on their own for benefits.
Our human resources department as it is has decried that they will never expand our department out of the state because even with the strength of the federal government now that they just won't be able to handle the regulatory differences between states, when within the state is already so difficult.
Can you imagine just how much of a blow to the economy that would be when businesses have even more problems expanding because of lack of central control?

[BlaqueKatt]

my state still has a law on the books making abortion illegal, and the pro-lifers have fought hard to keep it, because if Roe v. Wade goes away, it is instantly illegal here. There are quite a few states with laws that were trumped by federal laws still "on the books" because no one ever saw the point in repealing them.

[AdminAssistant]

Actually, smiley, it's already a problem. Fiance works for an insurance company (he deals with car insurance claims). He's only certified to work in ~20 states, because every single state has different laws and rules about how claims can be handled. It's a huge pain in the ass for the company, because they have to make sure they have enough people trained and certified to do claims in certain states. Imagine how much faster, cheaper, and easier things would be if we all followed the same rules and regulations.

[smileyeagle1021]

Oh, Admin, I can imagine... the company I'm in though has the problem where we have a very specific employee profile. We need people who are really fast at typing, have very clear voices, are willing to accept the pay that the company can afford (relay operations have a very tight margin on them)... oh and can pass a background check.
So, there is nothing the company would like more than to expand to other states (Nevada would be a great place for us to expand to, especially places like Ely or Elko that were mining towns, but have seen mines go dry, that now have a lot of families looking for work, and while the percentage of people who meet their requirements may be low, they won't have to look hard for applicants like they do in Salt Lake), but right now we are limited to expansion in Utah because they can't afford to run multiple HR departments or subdepartments to handle each state's laws. Our video department operates in several states out of necessity (it doesn't take much to tap a regions available interpreter base).
So, this whole state's power thing is hurting both companies and the states themselves. Looking at our Utah and Nevada example, Nevada is missing out on new call centers being opened that would help with their dismal unemployment problem (nearly 15% statewide), and Utah is missing out on the growth of their corporate tax base because the company is eating up more and more of its margin on recruiting and having less and less taxable income for the state. Yet both states are supporters of state's rights, even to their detriment.