MCViewPoint

By Laurence M. Vance

I can’t pronounce his name, but I think I’ll just call him Mr. Constitution.

Vivek Ramaswamy is “unapologetically pro-life,” but won’t sign a federal abortion ban on constitutional grounds.

Good for him.

Said Ramaswamy:

My view, as someone who is running for U.S. president, responding to the question about the Supreme Court case, was that Roe v. Wade was correct to be turned on constitutional grounds. It was made-up jurisprudence … it leads also to the path to moving forward, which is, that I think the federal government should stay out of it.

I think I’m the only Republican candidate in this field who has come out and said, “I would not support a federal abortion ban of any kind.” On principled ground, because I am grounded in constitutional principles, and I think there’s no legal basis for the federal government to legislate.

I don’t believe a federal abortion ban makes any sense, and I say this as somebody who is pro-life. This is not an issue for the federal government. It is an issue for the states. I think we need to be explicit about that. If murder laws are handled at the state level, and abortion is a form of murder, the pro-life view, then it makes no sense for that to be the one federal law.

Like Ramaswamy, I am unapologetically pro-life, but have been saying these things for many years.

And so has Ron Paul:

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue.

See the rest here

Be seeing you