The regions are fighting the good fight on the right to life. As a concerned citizen, where does the Federalist leadership stand on the issue of life? Where does the membership stand?
I am pro-life, other members of my leadership team are pro-choice or have a history of behind pro-choice. This represents the nature of a big tent Party such as ourselves. Our Party's platform encourages that life be promoted in both abortion and death penalty policies. However, we acknowledge that not every member shares this view and that is why it has been my preference that the issue be addressed at the regional level.
I defended the right of thE Mideast to pass their controversial abortion laws whilst other members, including the leadership at the time condemned it and I led the effort to defeat a Constitutional Amendment that would have invalidated most all abortion restrictions.
For months, I have been urging regions to take action on protecting life and decreasing the number of abortions in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling throwing out the late term abortion ban and devolving the issue to the regions. However, until recently there was not a single region led by people who cared about this issue and only the resurgence of the Federalist Party and the right in general has given the legislative presence and leadership of people, many of whom are our newest members, to push this issue forward.
If the leadership supports efforts to protect the unborn, how can they reconcile that with their latest surrender on consolidation? Nyman has always been overwhelmingly hostile to a culture of life. Preserving strong regions is one of the few ways our shared values and the lives of the unborn can be protected.
Actually, I would disagree with this notion. The gov't in Nyman passed a late term abortion ban act and twice voted to retain it when efforts were made by the left to repeal it. It was thrown out by a Court ruling that stipulated that only the regions could regulate this issue at a time when all the regions were run by pro-choice Governors or had pro-life Governors yoked with a pro-choice legislature essentially preventing action being taken. Therefore, I would say such was incorrect early this year when the ruling occured.
The Constitution being debated is very favroable to regions in general aside from the consolidation. As for that matter, it would be my preference, and likely that of most Federalists, thati f we could preserve the five regions, we should. However, it is beyond clear that such is just not feasible at this point. As for the two issues coming together, that is why ensuring that regional devolution occur alongside consolidation, has always been a critical component.
