|
I'm curious, since boths sides tend to only believe in federalism when the federal government is trying to block a state law they personally like (it is a state issue to decide when doctors can kill patients, but it is a federal/constitutional issue to decide when mothers can kill fetuses, or vice versa depending on party; it is a federal issue that pharmacists be required to sell birth control but a state issue that pharmacists be able to sell marijuana, or vice versa depending on party).
States rights do mean something, but it is just something more than "states rights are paramount when I like the law and hick provincialism when I don't." Since I've never seen anybody here give enough examples on when they think states' rights are paramount I am not speaking of anybody specific, just in generalities about when I see "states' rights" generally invoked.
To me, this one isn't a federalism question at all. The Oregon law is a travesty against personal freedom (wrapped up to pretend that it is an extenion of personal freedom). It isn't an issue on which either the federal government or state governments should be making laws, the right to termination resides with the individual, not the medical-bureaucratic complex. We've foolishly medicalized a non-medical action.
|