[Eastbound]

"A "right to choose" became the highest moral and political good, and "choice" took (and continues to take) precedence over religious teachings, traditional values, and even truth. Choice, however, has proven to be terrible when there is no duty to guide it, no responsibility to regulate it, no character to curb it, and no truth to test it."

Well stated.

We've always had the 'right' to choose and always will. What the courts did was create a 'right' not to be prosecuted for the consequences of wrong choices, substituting a judicial blessing instead.

[ElCapusto]

What the courts did was create a 'right' not to be prosecuted for the consequences of wrong choices, substituting a judicial blessing instead.

Bingo!

[musanon]

Eastbound wrote:

We've always had the 'right' to choose and always will.
What the courts did was create a 'right' not to be prosecuted for the consequences of wrong choices ---

Our 'right' not to be prosecuted for the "consequences of wrong choices" has always existed, as we have never given governments the power to "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."

Prohibitive laws violate due process.
The protection of individual rights by due process is part of the Constitution and it requires that the substance of the laws be constitutional.