[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?

[allmendream]

Overturned means just that. If the SCOTUS heard a case that challenged Roe v Wade, their decision would be limited to overturning Roe v Wade, not in making new law.

You have argued that such laws against contraception were not in violation of American citizens natural rights and defended the laws against them.

Back to the OLD law dodge again? While attempting to maintain the fiction that you are not actually FOR the old laws against contraception even!

Previously laws against interracial marriage were not seen to be a violation of the natural rights of man - we as a Republic now have a new view of such laws and their impact upon the natural rights of man. You agreed that these laws were unjust and needed to be struck down.

As such it seems obvious that a law must stand or fall upon its own merits, not upon the idea that because it was done previously it should be A-OK going forward.