Ron Paul, while a pro-life champion for all his life, has always opposed a constitutional amendment against abortion. Roe v. Wade was a usurpation of federal power against the states, and it can and should be undone by Congress. Congress has the explicit constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme and other federal courts, except for a very narrow area (lawsuits between foreign governments and the US government, etc.).

A simple vote of both houses of Congress would do it, as Ron has long proposed legislatively. His bill would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion. But the Republicans don’t want to repeal Roe anymore than the Democrats do. It is too fertile an issue for both parties.

Under a constitutional regime, the states handle such questions. New York and California, for example, would have legal abortion; Alabama and North Dakoka would not. Of course, there would be no federal abortions performed or subsidized, under Medicaid, the military, the Indian Health Service, etc. (Funny how the allegedly pro-life Bush has never vetoed tax-paid abortions in military hospitals.)

Such a federalist regime wouldn’t satisfy the centralizing ultras on either side, who would be welcome to fight it out in the state legislatures, but the vast majority of Americans would sigh in relief.

In any event, only religion can effectively battle abortion, not the guns and jails of the government.

Rudy Guiliani has already moved to a semi-Paulian position, while remaining pro-choice. Now Mitt Romney is doing the same thing, from a pro-life standpoint. But then, the Ron Paul Revolution is about changing idea, even among politicians.