Should Catholics be advocating for statehood for D.C.?

Two recent comment threads (here and here) have struggled with the application of subsidiarity in the American legal context, including its application to the District of Columbia.  Sandy Levinson ratchets up the rhetoric a bit in a post titled "Obama as Colonial Master."  An excerpt:

Thanks to the Constitution, the District of Columbia has an anomolous status. It is, for some purposes of federal jurisdiction, a "state," and, of course, thanks to the 23rd Amendment, DC gets three electoral votes. However, as any resident of DC emphasizes, it continues to be treated as a ward of the national government, the equivalent of a colony without voting representation in the House or Senate or, more to the point, any of the autonomy that is presumably attached to being a state in our particular federal system. . . .

The City Council of DC has voted to spend the tax money of its own citizens to help pay for abortions of presumably poor and vulnerable women. Whatever one's views on abortion, there's no doubt at all that what John Marshall once called a "sovereign state" could choose to spend its own tax dollars on such a public policy (unless, of course, the Court holds that fetuses are "persons" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which not even Scalia has advocated). Only a colony, without any rights that the administering power need respect, could be prevented from passing such a program.

. . . . Barack Obama betrayed not only his contituents in DC, but also his ostensible and ostentatious devotion to "democracy" around the world by acquiscing to the denial of self-government to the District of Columbia.

Maybe abortion is not the best context in which to grapple with the issue, but it still presents the question: is the status of DC a problem for those who take subsidiarity seriously?