The Constitution, plus common sense and reasoned thought?
We once again come to that old discussion of "morals". Whose? When? Based on what?
I assert that the government has no business making people's morals for them. The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, defend them from external attack, and otherwise "ensure the blessings of Liberty". Laws, therefore based on common sense (murder, stopping at a stop sign) and the idea of protection of those rights are entirely appropriate. Those seeking to regulate what a person does to HIMSELF (or to his "soul") are not, if he is doing nothing to harm another. In fact, they come uncomfortably close to tyranny.
As for abortion, leave it for another thread. With someone else playing me.
"Reasoned" thought, unconstrained by moral authority can just as well be amoral as moral. By itself, it has no moral ethics, nor does it know about them. So that brings me back to my question: What or whose morality will be the basis for our gov't's 'reasoned thought'?