I think my earlier statement regarding a state regulating legal and moral tone may have been somewhat misunderstood in the overall context of the debate here, so I should have qualified it with a lot of subtext that I didn't provide. My approach is an attempt to be pragmatic with the current state of affairs we find ourselves in today, as opposed to what I consider the ideal.
I believe that our current form of government bears no resemblance to the one intended by the Founders. I believe that the Constitution was intended to restrict forcibly the power of government in the lives of citizens in all areas. In an ideal, fully functional libertarian republic, people would be responsible for the consequences of their own actions -- always and inherently. That would be part of dealing with the "harm to society" and "other taxpayers bailing you out of your own stupidity" angles that people try to use to justify government regulation. But once we (the American people, many years ago) began crossing certain lines in legislation and Supreme Court decisions, and accepting certain compromises in previous generations as it relates to the original Constitutional intent of the Founders, we accepted statism, socialism, regulation of personal behavior for societal good, and a whole host of cascading ill effects that have brought us to the place, very badly off course, where we find ourselves today.
So, a Constitutionally limited form of federalism seems like a reasonable compromise for now. (Sorry to be a cynic, but it's hard to envision enough collective awareness among our citizenry to turn the tide completely back the other way and return to the ideal). Some states will have weak-minded and feeble citizens, and will send representatives to office that will protect the People from themselves, because that's what the People indicate they want. There will constantly be horns locking over where the Constitution provides individual liberty vs. where the state may regulate personal behavior for the common good, but that will be the tone set by the government in that state, blessed by the voters who send those sorts of representatives to office.
Hopefully, you will also have states that decide to allow greater personal freedom, and the People will elect like-minded representatives to office. Ideally, people living in restrictive nanny-like states would see how much better the citizens of libertarian states have it, and would either elect representatives to office to pass the same laws in their state, or will move to a state with greater personal freedom.
But unless you can find in the Constitution where a dildo is a protected individual right, I'll pragmatically reckon it to be something that the People in some states may choose to regulate, whether it's to save themselves from temptation, or prevent others from having fun -- or from some perceived societal benefit to the overall moral tone of the place.
Personally, if the guy who proposed such legislation was my representative, I'd let his office know in no uncertain terms that I vehemently disagree with it, and consider it nanny-state legislation of the worst kind. I think some others indicated that this bill has no cosponsor, and I'd like to believe that it will never see the light of day. But I'm just not so sure that it's a specific right in the Constitution that would stop such legislation, so much as the will of the People, as expressed through their representatives. I don't think that even a strongly Southern Baptist/Fundamentalist state like South Carolina would have enough state reps that would be willing to go along with such a bill -- hopefully it wouldn't even be close. But many local governments may choose to make similar restrictions, and likely could muster enough political will among the People there to restrict such things as sex shops and other types of businesses. And if it can be regulated locally through a Constitutional means of elected representatives doing the will of the people, then I suppose if such restrictions can also reach a consensus at the state level, it should still be acceptable.
Do you agree or disagree with a state being able to restrict abortion? On what Constitutional basis?
It's your understanding that, basically, any town-council, of any state, could enact and enforce such a ban without any serious legal obstructions?