PDA

View Full Version : Rick Perry Categorizes Abortion as a States' Rights Issue



OnePimpTiger
07-28-2011, 09:38 PM
Rick Perry Categorizes Abortion as a States' Rights Issue (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/rick-perry-categorizes-abortion-as-a-states-rights-issue.html)


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 10th Amendment reads: "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."

Perry is not shy about touting his pro-10th Amendment beliefs, despite being a staunch social conservative who opposes same sex marriage and promotes pro-life initiatives. Late last week, he labeled same-sex marriage as a states’ rights issue, a position shared by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

I don't know much about Perry yet, but after reading these comments, I want to find out more. I am anti-abortion, but I completely agree with him here and 110% back states' rights positions. Many of the country's polarizing issues could be greatly reduced or eliminated by allowing each state to decide it's laws on them (as the Constitution intended!) instead of forcing one on everyone.

I'm curious to hear what liberals think of states' rights. Most of the time, it's conservatives who support it, but liberals are always against conservative views, especially those viewed as religion-based, being enacted as federal laws. Wouldn't each state enacting their own laws help that problem? It's hard to up and move to another country, but moving to a different state to live under laws you agree with would not be nearly as difficult.

sanfran22
07-28-2011, 10:22 PM
Agreed....

gatorboymike
07-29-2011, 01:14 AM
I agree with a states' rights standpoint on the abortion issue as well as others such as gay marriage.

However, it's ironic to hear Rick Perry standing up for the 10th Amendment when he obviously has no regard for the 1st Amendment, what with using the power of his office to promote religion. Oh yes, and this is the same guy who promoted secession in 2009. The man is a dangerous, fundamentalist extremist, a danger to national security, and a traitor in multiple senses of the word.

sanfran22
07-29-2011, 11:30 AM
I agree with a states' rights standpoint on the abortion issue as well as others such as gay marriage.

However, it's ironic to hear Rick Perry standing up for the 10th Amendment when he obviously has no regard for the 1st Amendment, what with using the power of his office to promote religion. Oh yes, and this is the same guy who promoted secession in 2009. The man is a dangerous, fundamentalist extremist, a danger to national security, and a traitor in multiple senses of the word.

That's kinda ironic. I guess one could say the same about the current president? What problem do you have with him regarding the first ammendment? The day of prayer? I didn't see him adopting a state religion. What is the purpose of the separation of church and state? I think I'd go back and read the context of Jeffersons phrase.

pghin08
07-29-2011, 11:39 AM
This is a completely moot point. The odds of Roe v. Wade ever being overturned are slim to none. If it was going to happen, it would have happened with Planned Parenthood v. Casey back in 1992 (maybe it was 1991, don't remember, too lazy to look it up). That was the most conservative the Supreme Court has been in decades, and they couldn't do it then. It's a classic case of stare decisis. By overturning Roe v. Wade via Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court would have done two things:

1. Set the stage for other prior decisions to be overturned, thus subverting the power of the Supreme Court. (which is basically the definition of stare decisis)

2. Totally politicize the Judiciary process. Which given the way the nature of politics handcuffs the Executive and Legislative branches, would be crazy. Don't get me wrong, I know the Court is in some ways a political entity, but for them to waver back in forth based off their own ideologies, overturning prior decisions based off what is politically "en vogue" is a true danger to our democracy.

Adding in the fact that there is no great discrepancy among the opinions of the American public on the issue (we're almost evenly divided on the issue), and you have a recipe for Roe v. Wade staying put. The Supreme Court (or any body of law makers/enforcers) will NEVER vote to compromise their own power, which striking down Roe v. Wade in the face of the indifference of the masses would do.

gatorboymike
07-29-2011, 01:29 PM
That's kinda ironic. I guess one could say the same about the current president? What problem do you have with him regarding the first ammendment? The day of prayer? I didn't see him adopting a state religion. What is the purpose of the separation of church and state? I think I'd go back and read the context of Jeffersons phrase.

If you don't know what the purpose is, you're beyond my help.

And no, I don't approve of the national day of prayer either. But Obama didn't institute it, and he made far less of a big deal of it than Bush did, and I see that as a step in the right direction. All in all I'd say he's done a mostly good job at keeping his religion where it belongs: in his personal life, not in the public square.

sanfran22
07-29-2011, 01:31 PM
If you don't know what the purpose is, you're beyond my help.

And no, I don't approve of the national day of prayer either. But Obama didn't institute it, and he made far less of a big deal of it than Bush did, and I see that as a step in the right direction. All in all I'd say he's done a mostly good job at keeping his religion where it belongs: in his personal life, not in the public square.
Oh, I know the purpose of it. I'm not sure our definitions would match.

mrveggieman
07-29-2011, 02:28 PM
Hey ya'll do you miss me on here? Anway murder is a state crime but it is prohibited in all 50 states plus dc. Abortion is the murder of an unborn child. Why can't each state prohibit murdering anyone regardless of weather they are a man, woman, child or unborn child?

*censored*
07-29-2011, 04:06 PM
"States' Rights" is a major misnomer. States' rights do not exist. Find me a right that a state has. There are none.

Now there are states' powers delineated by the Constitution vs. Federal powers, but there are no rights of states per se.

Rights are for individuals. Powers are for governments. You have states' powers, federal powers, and individual rights.

That being said, abortion is an issue that I feel SHOULD be left up to each state. However, it has to be done in a way that doesn't interfere with the woman's right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment (the issue of Roe v. Wade).


Hey ya'll do you miss me on here? Anway murder is a state crime but it is prohibited in all 50 states plus dc. Abortion is the murder of an unborn child. Why can't each state prohibit murdering anyone regardless of weather they are a man, woman, child or unborn child?

You just answered your own question: unborn child. It has the potential for life but isn't its own individual being. Where is the line drawn as to what's life and what isn't? Concepcion? 3 months? 6 months? Moment of birth? Why not just go pre-concepcion, and make it illegal to eliminate an unfertilized egg or sperm without an egg? After all, those cells have the potential to become human life.

duane1969
07-29-2011, 04:15 PM
In many states, if you stab a pregnant woman in the abdomen and cause the baby to die, you can be charged with murder, yet those same states are required by Federal law to allow the unrestricted...

mrveggieman
07-29-2011, 04:17 PM
Sad but true:rant:

gatorboymike
07-29-2011, 09:04 PM
So you think the individual states should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to allow this practice, but the individual mothers should not be allowed to decide whether or not they want to...

duane1969
07-29-2011, 09:36 PM
So you think the individual states should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to allow this practice, but the individual mothers should not be allowed to decide whether or not they want to undergo it?

Yes, that is exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

ffman
07-31-2011, 11:29 AM
Perry is a hypocrite.

He supports state rights for abortion, yet supports a constitutional amendment that categorizes marriage as between a man and a woman, effectively stripping the states of their right to define marriage.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/31/perry-backs-constitutional-marriage-amendment-but-says-focus-is-on-jobs/

"Perry, 61, said social issues should be decided state by state and even remarked that New York's passage of gay marriage law was that state's business. Still, he said he would support a constitutional amendment that takes away the power of the states to decide who can get married.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/31/perry-backs-constitutional-marriage-amendment-but-says-focus-is-on-jobs/#ixzz1ThI4H11T"

OnePimpTiger
07-31-2011, 05:56 PM
Perry is a hypocrite.

He supports state rights for abortion, yet supports a constitutional amendment that categorizes marriage as between a man and a woman, effectively stripping the states of their right to define marriage.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/31/perry-backs-constitutional-marriage-amendment-but-says-focus-is-on-jobs/

"Perry, 61, said social issues should be decided state by state and even remarked that New York's passage of gay marriage law was that state's business. Still, he said he would support a constitutional amendment that takes away the power of the states to decide who can get married.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/31/perry-backs-constitutional-marriage-amendment-but-says-focus-is-on-jobs/#ixzz1ThI4H11T"

I had read his comments on the NY law (that it was the state's option to do pass it), but didn't see that he would support a constitutional amendment. I think he does need to be consistent on the issue...however, perhaps his support of a constitutional amendment stems from the fact he knows the states currently do not have the powers they were delegated by the Constitution. If states' rights were acknowledged and followed as intended, perhaps his stance would be different.

duane1969
07-31-2011, 09:43 PM
Perry is a hypocrite.

He supports state rights for abortion, yet supports a constitutional amendment that categorizes marriage as between a man and a woman, effectively stripping the states of their right to define marriage.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/31/perry-backs-constitutional-marriage-amendment-but-says-focus-is-on-jobs/

"Perry, 61, said social issues should be decided state by state and even remarked that New York's passage of gay marriage law was that state's business. Still, he said he would support a constitutional amendment that takes away the power of the states to decide who can get married.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/31/perry-backs-constitutional-marriage-amendment-but-says-focus-is-on-jobs/#ixzz1ThI4H11T"

OPT beat me to it for the most part. There is nothing wrong with advocating states rights while playing "the game" the way it has to be played to get something done. That isn't hypocrisy, it is reality.

If he took the position that everything should be state's rights and never dealt with anything that wasn't a state's right then he would be quite a failure as a politician.