Dear Glenn Beck & Tomi Lahren,

With all due respect, I think you are both wrong on the topic of abortion!  And here’s why.

Tomi, you are pro-choice because you say the government should stay out of our lives.

Glenn, you are pro-life because government’s job is to protect ‘life, liberty, and property.’

I agree with both of you within the small confines of my summary of your statements.  But, I still feel you both completely miss the mark!

Tomi, you missed the mark because you took abortion to the federal level.  The national government has never had any constitutional authority over this issue.  Nothing in the constitution grants this power to D.C.  Roe vs. Wade should never have gone to the supreme court.  It is a perfect example of ‘legislating from the bench’.  Something that you as a conservative should be opposed to.  It completely bypassed both the legislative and executive branches of government.  It Subverted the balance of powers across the government, and more importantly, it Subverted States’ Rights!  And that is where you missed the mark!

The issue of abortion is one of many things that should be left to the individual states to decide.  The spectrum and range of opinions are too great to come to any sort of consensus or conclusion on the matter when hundreds of millions of people are involved.  It requires a more homogenous society to make such a decision.  Government cannot secure the public’s interest when the public is so widespread and diverse as the United States.  It is impossible!  If you truly want to keep the government out of your life, then don’t make this a federal case!

Glenn, you also missed the mark for almost the same reason.  In all the arguments I heard or read from you, I never once heard any mention of State’s Rights.  What I did hear was a lot of references to the Founders, the Pre-Amble, and other original documents and writings surrounding the creation of the Constitution.  But, there is a giant chasm between what the Founders wrote or said about the Constitution, and what it contains.  Even the Pre-Amble is not the Constitution itself.  The chasm is the fact that the law of the land is the constitution, whereas as their personal writings are just personal writings.  The Constitution is strictly the text within that sacred document.

Those at the Constitutional Convention deliberated, debated, discussed, and finally decided on every clause that was included.  After even more deliberation, they included the Bill of Rights.  The 10th amendment clearly established States’ Rights, implicitly stating that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

You are correct that one of the job’s of the government is to protect life.  But if this were the job of the federal government, specifically in the case of abortion, what would it require?  How big would the government have to grow to enforce this one law?  It would necessitate its involvement in health care, a police force to enforce the law, another one to investigate crimes, more taxes would be needed to fund these jobs and programs, it would have to dive into the personal lives of family to determine if an abortion is justified due to an extreme case of rape or the life of the mother is on the line, and possibly a host of other unforeseen areas of life.  The government’s tentacles would know no bounds in this case.  Granted, each state would necessitate something similar if it voted to outlaw abortion, but it is always more effective and much cheaper when done at the local level!

I am sure both of you are aware of the 10th amendment, so I may be preaching to the choir.  But that is the very reason I was shocked when neither of you even referenced it in your argument.  The concept is so simple that even Senator Lee, as a young child not even ten years old, understood it.

If clearly understood and utilized, Federalism would solve most of the issues people take back East.  The irritation and agitation we see on the streets would be considerably less if not eliminated.  Why?  Because something can effectively be done at the local level about what they want.  Public interest can be satisfied within a state, whereas within a nation so large, involving domestic issues, it will never be satisfied.  Furthermore, the disastrous effects of a single program that fails at the national level, would be entirely different if implemented at the state level.  If a program, say health care, were to miserably fail, its effects would not be spread across the entire nation.  It would be localized to the state and region where it was implemented.  Additionally, it is far easier to reverse or change course when it is obvious the failed program is not producing the desired results.

Unfortunately, States’ Rights have gone the way of the dinosaurs and become extinct.  They have been usurped and quietly overthrown by an ever expanding federal government that encroaches on everyone’s rights and responsibilities, but you both already know that, don’t you?

Now that I’ve told you both why I think you are wrong I need to add my disclaimer.  I do not know the full extent of Tomi’s suspension or subsequent termination; I do not know what went on behind the scenes.  There very well could be a lot more than what has been reported.  But, that’s not my business.