re: #97 freetoken

I would say states rights would mean that there would be less federal interference in local conditions. But it can’t mean going retro on the real advances of the last 150 years.

The part about abortion: from the Whig site, these two things apply:

“SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE — Government should refrain from legislating morality.”

and

Abortion

Our members are split on this subject just like the rest of the country. But the bottom line is that this one particular issue should not be the sole basis for which political party people affiliate with. For example, many “pro-choice” voters find themselves agreeing with many traditionally GOP issues while many of those opposed to abortion rights find themselves agreeing with many Democratic issues. Despite this fact, voters too often are pushed to choose one party or the other due to the abortion issue alone. It is time to end the trend of having this one issue become a deal breaker. Each state can determine its course of action like any other public health issue that revolves around medical procedures. The federal government should not get involved or regulate such items as the less involvement by the government in our private lives the better.

In addition, we encourage states to consider additional funding for greater access to adoption for people wishing not to keep a child and for qualified couples or individuals wishing to become parents of adopted children. Responsible safe-haven laws also give people an additional option beyond abortion. We support all policies giving couples additional options beyond abortion, making this practice even more rare.