An abortive policy stand

The guys on Mt. Rushmore are wishing they'd been given hands to cover their eyes. Seismologists in the area are speculating that recent tremors near Rushmore are signs that they're trying to free themselves from the mountain and move to Minnesota.

Seriously, though... here's the thing you need to ask anyone who supports what South Dakota has done - banning abortion outright - based on the claim that it should be up to the states whether or not abortion should be illegal: "Then you agree that there should not be a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage or defining marriage as something exclusively between a man and a woman, right?"

It's two sides of the same coin. If you're going to argue from a states' rights perspective for one moral prohibition, you are bound by logic to argue all moral prohibitions, including those you may disagree with, from a states' rights perspective. If you pick and choose which states' rights you wish to embolden and which you don't - remember, speaking strictly about moral prohibitions here - you invalidate your whole argument, essentially saying that states are responsible to decide moral issues if and when the federal government decides those issues contrary to your belief system. And in those circumstances, we have moved outside the realm of the republic which was designed for us in the 18th century.