Be careful what you wish for. We are a Republic which gives the states the power to govern and pass laws for their constituency as long as it doesn't infringe on the Constitution. If you allow the Federal Gov the power to institute laws at the local level, it will take away states rights to self govern.
The leaked draft does not indicate a ban on abortion, it indicates that it is a states right to pass laws in regards to abortion. Abortion is not a right granted in the constitution is what I am gleaning from the discussion of what the draft says. Thus, it is a states right to determine how abortion will be handled in their state. But the left will label this a ban on abortion.
Think about all the laws in the states we live in. Would you want these laws to be federalized and binding on half the country that think they are ludicrous? There are bizarre laws on the books in your state and mine that at least half the states would not even imagine instituting. Think about the mess around vaccine mandates. Imagine the Federal government having the power and authority to mandate the jab nationwide, which the Biden admin tried to do but repeatedly was shot down by courts. And so much for my body my choice which only applies to what the Dems/elites decide.
I am not an expert on constitutional law, so this is just an opinion I put out there for discussion.
I agree, there are a lot of ridiculous laws in various states, like you can't walk your peacock backwards on the sidewalk during daylight hours.
It's high time all of the ridiculous state laws get stricken from the books. I'm all for fewer laws, especially federal laws. But what good does it do society if abortion is legal in CA but not in AZ? Women who want abortions will drive from AZ to CA just to get an abortion. So did the AZ law actually do any good? It just forced them to spend an extra $200 (at projected $10/gal for gas) and drive 400 or 500 mi to get an abortion.
I personally think it's a woman's choice if she wants the procedure and the father should have the option to veto it and keep the child if he chooses.
We currently have a system where we have state and federal laws. If the DA loses their case, they can get vindictive and ask the USA to charge you with a federal crime with the same charge. That circumvents the entire "double jeopardy" principle. We should strike the major laws, like murder, abortion, embezzling, etc from the state books and just have more specific laws on the state or local books, like fishing laws, zoning laws, etc. There's no practical reason to have federal laws governing murder and 50 other versions of the same law in the individual states.
As far as Biden and the jab, I've maintained all along that he had NO right to mandate any medical procedures on anyone. Even the 4th amendment could be applied to this, since it states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," which at the very basic terms means the gov't has no right to use anyone in an experiment against their will. There's a good reason Dr. Mengele was considered a monster. If we had a federal law on the books specifically prohibiting the gov't from such medical experiments or unwanted medical procedures, Biden probably would have been stopped from even bringing it up, much less actually trying it.
In short, this could be a chance to reduce the number of laws on the states' books by a huge amount. It's not a request for more laws.
