[allmendream]

Constitutionally, if Roe were overturned, the States would have the authority to keep abortion legal. That is not an endorsement of this reality, but it would be the reality.

I support a Constitutional amendment for the right to life.

The argument was made that the decisions striking down laws against contraception were wrong WAS made - and yet it was somehow a bridge to far for me to conclude that this was also an argument that the law should be changed.

Yet nobody wanted to say that it was logically consistent to argue that the law was wrong, yet should remain unchanged. The preservation of incorrect law stance isn't one anyone was willing to claim.

And yet I point out the REALITY that if Roe were overturned it would be up to the States, and suddenly you want to make me out to be Pro-Choice and supporting States keeping abortion legal?

Absolutely ridiculous!!!!

But again, good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in their bedroom is “evil”, and that the government has a compelling interest in regulation of such and that such regulation would not be in violation of their natural rights, and is consistent with advocation of a small government of limited and enumerated powers!

[wagglebee]

And yet I point out the REALITY that if Roe were overturned it would be up to the States,

Actually, that depends on the ruling.

But again, good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in their bedroom is “evil”, and that the government has a compelling interest in regulation of such and that such regulation would not be in violation of their natural rights, and is consistent with advocation of a small government of limited and enumerated powers!

You have yet to show me where I have ever advocated this.

Also, as I pointed out yesterday, ALL of the states had morality laws two centuries ago and the Founding Fathers didn't seem to have any problem with them. Why do you think that was?