Federal government isn't restricting my access, they are protecting my access. You're advocating for State governments to be able to restrict your medical access. That's the joke - the party of small government is pushing for more restrictions.
ITT: Explain why you are in favor of or against repealing Roe v. Wade
Blake Barnes
Chase Gomez
States regulate personal activity all over the place. Either you say they can, or they cannot do so.
If you say that "bodily autonomy" is a basic Right, then you have to get rid of all drug laws, or limit those laws only to circumstances where the drug user may negatively affect others (drunk driving is a good example of that).
Where does that lead society? I don't know - I'm on the libertarian side of things and think that people ought to be able to go to hell in their own way, but what if the vast majority of people in a State decide they don't want drugs? Is the Federal Government to step in and say "you have to allow these things"?
Logan Smith
>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
This means that the rights citizens are not limited by those listed in the Constitution. This means aspects of life that are considered freedoms or rights can't be regulated by states or federal powers. The power over one's body being o e clear one.
Jonathan Miller
Heller specifically said that those places cannot stop you from "keeping and bearing" arms in your home.
Next stop, full carry. This SCOTUS is going to fix that soon.
Charles Rodriguez
I should probably correct my statement:
I meant bodily harm without observable harm to others. The arguments about abortion must address whether the fetus is alive in my opinion, because it's fundamental.
Autonomy is only stripped away when the action can cause damage, like a murder or assault. I'm not a freedom absolutist by any means, but I do despise the hypocrisy I see in regards to this idea all the time. Incest, for example, is a completely idiotic law, as the only observable harm is "genetic weakness", which is a justification based on eugenics (which is not actually a respected opinion) and also completely ignored when it comes to other stuff with that same 'harm' like the elderly having sex. It's a law based on perceived 'immorality'.