I could just as easily said. "It appears to affect Obviously, it affects the lives of South Carolina citizens, however, and they have a right to ban them."
"Are you really contending that a ban would be within their rights even if no ill effect can be shown to actually exist?"
I contend that this falls within the police power of the state. Now if, as you postulate, there is no ill effect, the citizens may question the legislature as to the purpose of this law and make their voices known.
But I believe it would survive a constitutional test, yes.
Do you believe that the citizens of South Carolina don't have the right to petition their state government to ban these items? That these items must be made available to those who want them? Taken a step further, do you believe the State of South Carolina should have the power to force stores to carry these products (eg., my State of Illinois forces, by law, Wal-Mart to carry the morning after pill)?
Point taken, rp; what was I thinking in debating what you actually did say? The thing is, I'm more comfortable debating things that have actually been said, and am not too sure how to do otherwise.
"Now if, as you postulate, there is no ill effect"
Oh, now I see. You merely assert that your opponent said something through a misleading accusation, and then debate the false point.
Thanks for the intro to straw-man debating. Is this really the way you wish to debate? Seems kinda worthless to me.