YYY+Federalism+Research

=JSubmit your Federalism Issue summary here:=

Vince; Victoria; Monica: Same-Sex Marriage
Relation to Federalism: The right to give marriage licenses is reserved to the states. Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 states and one federal district, these states and district being Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington D.C. One of the most controversial and highly profiled fights against marriage is Proposition 8 from California. The proposition states that a marriage is defined between a man and a woman. The proposition passed in November 2008 by the slimmest of margins. 52% voting yes on prop 8, supporting the definition of marriage strictly between a man and a woman, and 47% voting no. The constitutionality of this proposition was challenged in court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. In the United States District Court of Northern California, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, on August 4th 2010, ruled “Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Despite the fact that the Proposition was legally appealed, same-sex marriages could not be performed because the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ordered the judgment stayed pending appeal. Many experts and people today concur that Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a landmark case, and will likely reach the ultimate federal court level, the Supreme Court. If this occurs, the Supreme Court will judge the constitutionality of Proposition 8, and ultimately the deprivation of same-sex couples to marry. Whatever judgment is passed, the whole country must follow, making that day a watershed event.
 * //What has gone on historically in terms of the Federal Gov trying to regulate same-sex marriage, especially the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That hasn't been decided in the courts, but how would you rule on this matter. Does the national gov have the Constitutional authority to pass DOMA? That needs to be addressed//**


 * Our opinion on Same-sex marriage and federalism:**

The states should have the privilege to have more say, and prevail over the national government when it comes to same-sex marriage. The occurrence of same-sex marriage within the US should be determined by individual states rather than the national government because the national government should strictly focus more on what they’re precise duties are, while the states should focus on what their citizens want **//(This is where you need to bring in the 10th Amendment; Article I: sec 8, etc).//** The national government can’t control every state laws that are established, and besides, if they do, many conflicts will arise between the people and the national government, if the federal government makes the decision.

**Janelle Corpuz, Matthew Do, Mariel Hernandez: Physician Assisted Suicide**
Overview/Facts: - A.k.a. PAS - When the physician provides a patient with a dose of medication that is enough to kill them; this is done by a patients request and the intention to end their own lives - Legal in Oregon (Oregon Death with Dignity Act) - Up to individual states for the choice of whether or not PAS is legal

Relates to Federalism? · 1997 – Janet Reno (Clinton’s attorney general) stated that the states should be able to regulate what’s done in their states in term of medical ways. They believed that the states should be able to control their own doctors. Reno also states that she denied the request to declare that PAS violates the law. **//What about since then? During the Bush administration, there was some legal action against Oregon. Did the federal gov have the Constitutional authority?//**

Role of State/Government: - The central government’s stand is that they feel that the States Government’s should be in charge of this issue so they have let the states decide. And all states except for Oregon consider physician-assisted suicide a crime. However, through the commerce clause **//(why, how - explain this)//** the central government can step in when needed which is an aspect of federalism but overall, states are in charge of policy making for this topic.

Trends: o Some trends were in the types of reasoning to why the states or federal had authority. For example, federal government and the opposing side citizens such as Quill would use the commerce clause of the constitution (Article 1 section 8) Which mentioned that the federal government had right to intercede or regulate commerce within the states. (And also Indian tribes and foreign countries) They would also use the 14th amendment, which states, “ to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." o But the most common trend is that many states have given tried to ban PAS yet in states courts the state favored the law however, in Supreme court they favored the people because of the citizen’s rights. **//I am not sure what you are saying here//**

Court Cases: · Compassion in Dying v. Washington (1996) o Washington government created a statute that banned PAS, which was challenged by many doctors and patients. District court ruled in Gulksberg and his foundation’s (Compassion in dying favor. And when taken to court the federal government declared the statute violated due process clause of the constitution and it is not protected under the 14th amendment because it is not a core interest of the government. o The Ninth US Circuit Court Appeals: ruled that the person who is dying had a choice to when and how they died.  · The Second Circuit Court  o 14th amendment conflict  o It was said that some patients were not treated fairly compared to others.  o Supreme Court ruled there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide after they clarified the difference between physician assisted suicide and refusal of treatment yet they gave the choice of states to determine if PAS is legal or not. So they the courts ruled with the states.  · Vacco v. Quill (1997)  o New York had approved prohibition against PAS. So it would be considered a crime if doctors knowingly or intentionally ended a patient’s life. o District court ruled in favor of the statute however, when it got to supreme court they ruled hat New York’s ban was in interest of protecting medical ethics and better interest of it’s citizens.

Our opinion: Physician-assisted suicide is something that should be carefully handled by the state. Overall, it is up to the people to decide whether or not they would like to take their life away. Physician-assisted suicide is basically having a physician give you the medicine that will take your life away and being American, people have the right to either they would like to end their life if they are suffering in a way that is unbearable. At the same time, the national government has no right to basically say if this is legal or illegal **//because of what section of the Constitution?//**. It is up to the states because of these certain issues are important for the states to decide. Since the 10th Amendment, the constitution states that people have certain rights and these rights are left for the states to decide, but ultimately people have their own rights to do what they want to do.

**//You really needed to focus on the Constitution and what it has to say about this issue, especially the sections that give power to the Federal Gov (Art I: sec 8; elastic clause; commerce clause; general welfare clause) and to the States (10th Amendment).//**

=Delani Dumpit, Tricia Dones, Melissa Desuyo, Anne Wang: Physician Assisted Suicide =

OVERVIEW - Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) refers to the physician providing the means for death, most often with a prescription. - The patient, not the physician, will ultimately administer the lethal medication - The Supreme Court left the decision of whether to legalize P.A.S. up to each individual state. Currently, Oregon is the only state that has legalized P.A.S.

RELATION TO FEDERALISM In physician-assisted suicide: -The physician provides the necessary means or information -The patient performs the act

There are two principles on which all of organized medicine agrees: -Physicians have an obligation to relieve pain and suffering and to promote the dignity of dying patients in their care. -The principle of patient bodily integrity requires that physicians must respect patients' competent decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment.

How does it relate to federalism? - In 1997 the US Supreme Court recognized there is no federal constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. - The Court affirmed that state legislatures may choose to legalize it or not.

OUR OPINION <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(Which government, national or state, do you feel should prevail or have more say? Why?) <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Physician assisted suicides is an issue that people should have their own say <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- We feel that there should be a limit on the assisted suicide time. For example, if the patient has one month or longer to live then he or she is not able to do the “treatment” unless they are in deep pain. <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- We also believe that the government should have more say in this topic because the government funds hospitals with the money from taxpayers. The money the government uses to pay for the hospitals are being collected from all states, therefore the commerce law is enabled into this case.- <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Presently the states have a bigger say in this case because there currently three states that allow physician assisted suicide and the rest of the states claim it as illegal. The government should have the bigger say in this topic since its money is being used or hospital medication, etc.

**//You really needed to focus on the Constitution and what it has to say about this issue, especially the sections that give power to the Federal Gov (Art I: sec 8; elastic clause; commerce clause; general welfare clause) and to the States (10th Amendment).//**

<span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">COURT CASES <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">When: 1997 <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What: Court ruled that state laws that criminalize physician-assisted suicide were not unconstitutional. In other words, Physician-assisted suicide is not a crime and the decision is ultimately in the hands of each state.

<span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">When: April, 2002 <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Who: U.S. District Judge Robert Jones <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What: Jones stated that the U.S. Attorney General had "overstepped the authority of the Controlled Substances Act by declaring that he physician-assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose.

<span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">November, 2001 <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Who: Senator Ron Wyden <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What: “Conquering Pain Act of 2001” <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Wyden introduced a bill to the Senate committee in his efforts to improve pain management.

<span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">TRENDS <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Controlled Substances Act (CSA)1970 <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">To combat drug abuse and control legitimate v. illegitimate trafficking of substances and the unauthorized distribution of such substances.

<span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1971 <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Regulation required that prescriptions be used for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner in the course of his/her professional practice.

<span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Oregon Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA) 1997 <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- To assist persons diagnosed with terminal illness’ that will lead to death within six months by prescribing a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of a terminally ill patient.

<span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2001 <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Attorney General issued an “Interpretive Rule” to address the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) with respect to ODWDA, declaring that physician assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical practice and that prescribing them for such a purpose is unlawful under the CSA.

<span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2000 <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Pain Relief Promotion Act passed House of Representatives but was not brought to a vote in the Senate. It banned dispensing federally controlled drugs to assist a patient's suicide. <span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Purpose: To promote pain management through education and training of health care providers.

<span style="color: #009fff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**//Did any of the court cases affect the Federalism aspect of this issue, i.e. did the ruling result in the state or federal gov getting control of PAS?//**

<span style="color: #f43e3e; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Akhil Puri <span style="color: #f43e3e; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">David Rasay <span style="color: #f43e3e; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Yoni BIGBOY <span style="color: #f43e3e; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Carnice

<span style="color: #f43e3e; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Physician Assisted Suicide

<span style="color: #f43e3e; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">An Oregon law was passed recently which stated that it was perfectly legal to inject lethally into people who have incurable diseases during their last 6 months of life. In a 2-1 vote **//(taken by whom?)//** last May, the states gained the responsibility and not the government **//(States are governments, so do you mean not the federal gov?)//** to evaluate doctor assisted suicide. Social and religious conservatives have tried to abolish anything having to do with physician-assisted suicide, claiming that it is immoral and violates basic principles guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. In Washington v. Glucksberg (an extremely crucial case regarding physician-assisted suicide), the Supreme Court case stated that the states acted as labs, and it is their individual responsibility to determine what they could or could promote – in this case, physician assisted suicide. This pivotal case will be talked about later in the report. **//Not sure where you got the info on the Glucksberg case - the decision by the US Supreme Court was the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and therefore, Washington could make PAS a crime.//**

<span style="color: #f43e3e; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Historically, states have used their power to ban physician-assisted suicide and people have disagreed with that by questioning the constitutionality of that. For example, in Washington v. Glucksberg 1997, physicians argued that the ban placed by the state was unconstitutional because of the Due Process clause in the 14th amendment. In this case, the courts decided that the ban was unconstitutional and that physician assisted suicides were constitutional by the 14th amendments due process clause. In another instance of Gonzales v. Oregon 2006, it was legal for two physicians to give a lethal dose of medication to a terminal patient within 6 months of death, but the attorney general challenged that claiming that that law violated a controlled substances act. The courts ruled that the attorney general did not have power from the controlled substances act to prohibit physician-assisted suicide. As these show, the states may put a ban on physician assisted suicide, but the supreme court has had a pattern of overruling the ban or indirectly allowing physician assisted suicide.

<span style="color: #f43e3e; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">I believe the states should have more say on this issue because different regions of America hold different ideals, which would therefore be a matter of the state. States should have a right to create their own quotas and regulations in this subject matter. I personally have no issue with physician-assisted suicide, however many people disagree with me. The constitution does not discuss anything about suicide, so therefore it should be a state power, or a reserved power. //** You really needed to focus on the Constitution and what it has to say about this issue, especially the sections that give power to the Federal Gov (Art I: sec 8; elastic clause; commerce clause; general welfare clause) and to the States (10th Amendment). **//

=** Jason Chong **= =** Jennifer Rillamas **=


 * Death Penalty or Capital Punishment **

Overview: The Death Penalty is currently a debatable topic of federalism because to sentence someone to death means to take away one of the natural rights defined by John Locke, the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are rights every human being is entitled to. In today's society, state governments ideally have control over what is considered to be "aggravating factors" that would cause one to be sentenced to death. However, in the past 40-50 years, the Federal Government has become more and more prevalent in deciding what exactly these "aggravating factors" entail, resulting in almost two different trials where the case is first looked over by the judge in regards to the states standards and second is looked over by a jury which then has their input for the sentencing. In general, the Courts leave it up to states to decide what qualifies for capital punishment and what doesn't and simply follow state's rulings.

Roles, Trends, Federalism, and Court Cases Traditionally, the power to enforce the death penalty belonged to the state government because the federal government allowed the states to regulate public policy. This freedom of choice has led to state governments following the trend of the population of the state, which has resulted in 36 states choosing the death penalty for a first-degree murder, but 14 <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">other states, and the District of Columbia, only sentence criminals of first-degree murder to life in jail. Overall, Capital Punishment has become no more than another moral question that confronts our society where issues are placed on a moral continuum and people have to decide where exactly it fits in. Over the past 10 years, the number of death sentences per year has decreased in a substantial way. From reaching a high point of 328 sentences in 1994 to a lower 106 sentences in 2009, death sentencing has decreased almost 35 percent.

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Fiscal Federalism: As far as fiscal policies go, the cost of executions along with keeping members of death row imprisoned are a great financial burden on the states. For example, in California, the death penalty system costs taxpayers about $114 million a year in addition to the costs of keeping convicts in prison until they are killed. In Florida, capital punishment costs citizens almost $51 million a year about what it would cost to punish all the first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole.**//Those $$ numbers are "fiscal", but not part of federalism, unless the fed gov gives the money or sets conditions for the receipt of the $$ (indirect control).//**

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Regulatory Federalism: As for Regulatory Federalism, the federal government has been there to step up in certain situations and make decisions based on the constitution of whether or not a certain ruling in cruel or unfair, as mentioned in the Eighth Amendment. However, the federal government does not hold the power to establish a morality scale that all other cases are judged on, so the courts rely on the constitutionality of the item at hand.

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Furman v. Georgia (1971) <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-After the Court decided whether the death penalty was cruel and unusual in this case, the state governments were being challenged with making sure that their use of the death penalty was consistent and not discriminatory.

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gregg v. Georgia (1975) <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-Court ruled that a punishment in the form of a death sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment because when a defendant is convicted of taking another life, the death penalty is appropriate within the states they are permitted in.

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Other cases that show the National Governments involvement with the sentencing of the Death Penalty occurs when the issue of what age at which someone can be sentenced to death pops up. <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">examples:

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Thompson v. Oklahoma (1987) <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-Court ruled it unconstitutional that anyone age 15 or younger, convicted of crime, to be executed

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Stanford v. Kentucky (1988) <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-Court ruled that it was up to the states to decide whether an individual, 16 or 17 years of age could be subject to capital punishment

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Other provisions have been made that determine whether certain groups of people are subject to the death penalty or not.

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Penry v. Lynaugh (1988) <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-Court decided that persons with mental retardation are not subject to death sentences due to the Eighth Amendment

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">However, developments from the past few years have set new standards <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Roper v. Simmons (2004) <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-executing minors is a violation of the Eighth Amendment due to the evolution of decency that our society has.

<span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Other Important Years: <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">-1994 --> Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which states over 60 additional offenses, such as terrorism or drug trafficking (that result in death), that the government can use to sentence someone to death

Our Opinion: <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">On the topic of the death penalty, in regards to federalism, we believe that the death penalty should be a federal government power because it deals with removal of rights, the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also, because of the many different opinions of the population, a uniform punishment for certain outrageous crimes that effect the rights of people, or something worse, should be put into effect. **//But those reasons aren't federalism reasons.//** //** You really needed to focus on the Constitution and what it has to say about this issue, especially the sections that give power to the Federal Gov (Art I: sec 8; elastic clause; commerce clause; general welfare clause) and to the States (10th Amendment). **// <span style="color: #9300ff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

Derek Guterres, David Hau, Solomon Ahmadi


 * __No Child Left Behind__**

This act was signed into law on January 8, 2002 under President George Bush. It is the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It was propelled by Senator Edward Kennedy of MA. This act increases funding for schools serving poor students, mandates “highly qualified” teachers in every classroom and hold schools that accept federal funds accountable for raising the achievement of all students. All students by the year 2014, must be grade-level proficient in math and reading. Congress appropriated 27 billion dollars to implement the law. Funding for public education has increased by 30 percent since the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) was enacted. Congress only provides 8 percent of funding for public education, but since the 1960s, it has passed laws that give the Department of Education more power. It seems to work because 73 percent of the states report that students are improving. For example, the reading percentage gap between White and Hispanics narrowed from 31 percent to 5 percent.


 * __Standards of No Child Left Behind__**

The standards for the NCLB are one test per year from 3-8 grade and once in high school. States must publicize test results and students are broken down into groups – economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, disabled and limited English proficiency. Teachers should be highly qualified and have a college degree in their subject, a license by the states and must take a test. Schools must reach adequate yearly progress, and failure to do so will include forced payments for after school programs and possible restructuring.

The NCLB pertains to Federalism because there is a question of power of whether or not the states should have the right to determine the quality and other aspects of schools, however in the NCLB act, the national government is setting up laws that determines what every school should follow and what every school does. According to the original Constitution, any powers that are not specifically designated to the national government are given to the states. In the original Constitution, it does not talk about schools and the states should have the power to make their own schools and determine the quality of it. There is still much debate whether or not the states should have the power to determine the requirements for schools. However, it seems as though time progresses, the determination for the requirements for schools are tipping towards the national government which can be seen through these following events:
 * __How Does the NCLB Act Pertain to Federalism__**

-1954—Brown vs Board of Education which expands federal power and separate but equal is inherently unequal. -1958—National Defense Education Act in response to Soviet Union and Sputnik -1965—President Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which provides fund to school districts to help disadvantaged students. -1980—US department of Education Established 1994—America’s Schools Act, require more testing and accountability than original ESEA -January 8, 2002—George W. Bush signs NCLB -April 20, 2005—Department of education sued for violating NCLB’s provisions

As time progresses, it seems as though the national government is setting up standards and determines the education and school aspects and the states have less and less effect on schools and education. **//Good job showing the history/trend in regulating education and schools//**


 * __Opinion__**

We believe that the national government should hold the power to decide the qualifications and requirements for schools because education is an important aspect throughout society and we should give equal chances for all children and not give opportunity to children who can afford to live in a better school district and what not. However, even though we view that the national government should be able to have the power of making qualifications for the schools, the states should have the power based on federalism, because the power to control the qualifications of schools is not specified within the Constitution, therefore this power should be given to the states and not to the national government. //** You needed to discuss the sections of the Constitution that give power to the Federal Gov (Art I: sec 8; elastic clause; commerce clause; general welfare clause) and to the States (10th Amendment) and how they impact your decision. **//

=__ Abortion __= Mitra Shokri, Alex Moll, Sergio Segura

__ Federalism Issue __


 * The issue of abortion is related to federalism because it is a moral issue that has been debated on whether the states or the federal government should decide the lawfulness of the procedures. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal of a fetus from the uterus. Abortion’s lawfulness and mortality have been thrown into question many times in the past. Many religious groups are anti-abortion because it is the killing of an unborn baby. But others justify abortion saying that the baby is not yet alive and the procedure could help prevent further difficulties for the mother. Abortion can be argued as justifiable when the woman pregnant was raped or if the pregnancy is putting the mother at risk. Other reasons for abortion could be that a mother does not have the financial resources to help support the child. But many resort to abortion just because they do not want a child at the time or have made a mistake and used poor judgment when having sex. In the court case Roe v. Wade (1973), a decision was made about abortion by the Supreme Court. A woman in Texas who was pregnant lied about being raped in order to have a abortion in a state where it was not allowed. The case reached the supreme court where it was decided that denying the woman an abortion due to the circumstances was a violation of a persons right to privacy stated loosely in the 9th and 14th amendment. The supreme court decided that abortion was in fact legal and the decisions ended up affect laws of 46 states. The main federalism question is whether the right for women to have an abortion should be up to the states or federal government like it is currently

__ Stance of National and Federal Government __
 * From 1880 and throughout most of the 20th century abortion was illegal in most of the states in the US. It was in the 1970 when the pro-choice movement started because some states started amending anti abortion laws. To counteract the government private organization and clinics stepped up by providing loans and other programs that would make getting an abortion more manageable. In 1973 //Roe V. Wade// would become the focal point on the legality of abortion. Roe was a Texan citizen, who wanted to end her pregnancy with abortion, although under Texas law it was illegal to get an abortion. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of Roe stating that the right to get an abortion fell under the 14th Amendment to protect a person’s privacy. Today most abortions take place in private clinics and receive no federal funding, but Planned Parenthood is one federal fund **//(that includes abortion - it isn't soley for abortion)//** for abortion that receives over $250 million dollars. Much controversy still follows this topic as the morality of killing a conceived baby is always put into question.

__Our opinion__ //** You really needed to focus on the Constitution and what it has to say about this issue, especially the sections that give power to the Federal Gov (Art I: sec 8; elastic clause; commerce clause; general welfare clause) and to the States (10th Amendment). **//
 * We believe that abortion should be a state issue. The laws established for abortion should be made by the states because not everyone in the country has the same beliefs and opinions about it **//(neither does everyone in a state or city for that matter).//** For some it is a moral issue and for others it is simply a decision of money or health. If the federal government were to regulate abortion it would only provide the people with one option. If it is a federal issue and the government bans abortion it could seriously go against the culture or beliefs of a specific group people. You cannot force everyone in the country to believe the same thing, and if the federal government does not allow abortion, then you could be denying someone their cultural right. Because abortion is a controversial moral issue I believe it should be left up to the states so that not everyone is forced to follow what one group of people believe. This leaves it more open for different groups in different regions to express their beliefs on the subject.