On the discussion in the UN of the previous entry.

Under the US Constitution, we have an ongoing discussion of Federalism (the States decide,) v Nationalism (the Federal Government decides at a National level.) In particular, the Roe v Wade right to abortion has been decided to be a Federal discussion, rather than a State's prerogative. In a globalist context, we could envision a similar discussion at work in a Global World Government. In this context, Federalism would be analogous to the old discussion of Sovereignty, while Nationalism would be analogous to a rather Orwellian idea of a World government (forgive the melodrama.) I suspect from news reports that recent history has involved the United States in advocating for a very weak view of Sovereignty, leaving the opposite (and to my view distressing,) option apparently desirable in the UN General Assembly. Since most Americans will not want any part of this "Nationalist" international government, this leaves the current UN Ambassador in a difficult bind. His job immediately becomes a byzantine one of education. Literally the majority of world leaders will regard abortion as a human rights issue of which they are absolving themselves with a minimum of effort. If it should come to pass that what is now in the United States a "law," should be made a "right," and that in an international context of totalitarian implications, Sovereign States would as a group lose any right to choose their application of this issue. Our current Ambassador, being "under the gun," and not having Sovereignty open as a fall back position (by my loosely inferred reading of the news in recent history,) may find himself in a demanding position diplomatically of approaching the nation of Rousseau in a desperate last ditch effort to avert a potentially permanent disaster of international law. I can only hope that it was not the US herself who introduced this legislation. I hope I don't sound too much like Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann.