--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Ron Paul's position is that it is constitutionally up to the > States to decide the law on it,
I think that the principal that decisions should be made at the level of the individual, or as close to it as possible, is a good one. The closer to the individual, the more that decision can be influenced by 'grass roots". "Choice" often cloaks the issue that the absence of Roe v Wade would not outlaw abortion. It simply leaves it up to the states to decide. I am strongly pro-choice -- but I would rather the discussion be made as close to the individual, the grass roots as possible. Better on the state level than the national level. Better on the community level than the state level. Best on the individual level -- that is the recognition that the state -- at whatever level is out of its juristiction in matters such as this. If the decision were made at the county level, choice would prevail -- most area would be withing driving distance of a choice-based county. Local vs national control manifests in many areas. California, and 13 states are suing the EPA for their feet dragging on vehicle emission standards. I understand the value of "universal standards" and its role in reducing costs. However, I think states or local entities should have the option to "opt out" of such national standards -- and pay a higher price -- if such has value. Environmentally retarded states and interests often prevail at the national level, thwarting progressive steps of more light-bearing states or local entities. Same issue of local vs national control for many issues including, universal health insurance, tax policy, medical marijuana, assisted suicide, broader environmental standards, educational standards an policy, and even "global adventures". If states, or local communities could "opt out" of the war in Iraq, we would have Georgia, Alabama, and perhaps Texas perhaps involved a very limited, small scale intervention.
