[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

The GOP loves "small government" unless you're a gay person trying to get married or adopt a child, or if you're a woman who wants birth control or an abortion.

To the GOP, abortion is murder--but slowly poisoning a community with pollution and toxic waste is the free market at work.

They only like "small government" when it comes to paying for the federal services that they benefit from in the form of taxes.




So I'll stockpile my birth control now, he'll do his best to make sure I can't access it. Because his religious beliefs trump my personal decisions about my body.




But if Texas wants to whitewash the Trans-Atlantic slave trade out of their textbooks (they do), why should the Federal government allow them to purposefully miseducate the youth that are going to grow up to run this country in the future?

If Texas and other states want to provide non-scientific abstinence only education to their students--despite the fact that it often leads to higher cases of teen pregnancy, higher abortion rates, higher instances of STIs, etc--why should the government allow that to happen, when its the taxpayers who will then be paying for those unplanned babies?

To an extent, yes, states should have some ability to govern at the state level, but there have to be checks and balances, like you aren't allowed to purposefully teach wrong and misleading information to the children in your care.

Also my rights as a woman shouldn't depend on which state lines I live inside. The rights of gay people shouldn't depend on what state they're in. The ability to vote shouldn't depend on the state you live in. Unfortunately, a lot of states take advantage of "states rights" to limit the rights of exactly those people.

While I agree with most of what you said you can't ignore jurisdiction just because you don't agree with what is going on. That is the whole point of separation of powers.