Blah, blah, blah. I’ve heard all that libertarian crap before. I even used to believe some of it.

When you say, “I have seen the commerce clause, in conjunction with the ‘necessary and proper’ clause at the end of section 8 to justify more federal power grabs than any other clause”, you’re really saying, “I think those clauses should be more narrowly interpreted, but the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with me.”

This stuff has been in front of the Supremes, and they almost never take that narrow reading. And it’s been damn good for the country.

>> I think it’s an attempt to get a free ride on the efforts of others.
> I don’t understand how. Please explain further.

I think it’s an attempt to avoid change. To wallow in backward, self-destructive atavism.

It’s a Blotto game — the smaller side wants to force the larger side to fight on more and more battlefields until the larger side’s resources are so spread out that the smaller side can overwhelm them in a few places to claim victory.

Liberal abortion laws make the US a better place — the maternal death rate drops, there are fewer unwanted children, it may even reduce crime rates. Making it a state-level issue will ensure that there are enclaves where one can pretend some sort of moral superiority, while also ensuring that abortion will be available for those “deserving” (which, from a conservative perspective, seems to mean those with money).