Originally Posted by Piobaire
I tend to agree with that. Abortion is a great example where faux (religious) conservatives want federal law outlawing it. However, liberals are against states' rights on this as heaven forbid a state should make a decision they disagree with over abortion.
If you believe that federal government serves any one purpose, you'd probably agree that this purpose is to protect the most basic human rights— the things that should be untouchable by any tyranny of the majority. For pro-lifers, this includes the right to life of the unborn. The right to life is a pretty essential thing, after all— we're not talking trivial shit like egg rations or rent control.
That's the principle of the matter, in practice, I don't think many pro-lifers seriously have their hopes pinned to a Right-To-Life amendment. In fact, I think most pro-lifers would support states' rights in this matter, because if RvW were overturned and the matter went back to state-level elected representatives, there would almost immediately be serious restrictions enacted on abortion in a whole host of states. Mississippi and South Daktota might outlaw it entirely (closing all of- what?- five abortion clinics?)
Deciding social issues by judicial fiat is never quite the fait accompli that activists on any side of an issue like to imagine it. Removing it from the hands of elected representatives leaves a whole segment of the population feeling disenfranchised, stoking the flames of resentment, which is part of the reason the abortion still remains so contentious. People are far more likely to tolerate a law-of-the-land that contradicts their own personal convictions if they at least feel they have part ownership in it.