Well perhaps with S. Dakota passing a ban on abortion, States Rights will be revisited again real soon.
Well, perhaps with Californias passing a ban on 'assault weapons', States Rights will be revisited again real soon?
Don't hold your breath.
A state exercising its 'right to prohibit' is a problem in a free republic, not a solution.
What? So the state doesn't have a right to prohibit to say, prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole?
It becomes a problem, -- especially for instance when they prohibit ex-felons from owning guns, along with losing the vote.
States are delegated the power to reasonably regulate most aspects of our life, liberty or property, using due process of law. -- But fiat prohibitions are not due process.
Please show me where, by the doctrine of intent, does the Constitution speak of an enumerated right to an abortion?
Neither our US Constitution, nor any state constitutions mention abortion or the power to prohibit it. --- We have murder laws that apply to the issue. They should be enforced.
You should should be far more fearful of an activists court that basically eliminates a constitutional branch of the government then a state trying to protects its future citizen's by "prohibiting" its death.
If you see a murder, demand that your local prosecutor indict and hold a trial..
But fiat prohibitions on items like guns or on sins like abortion are not Constitutional under our due process of law.
That is how I read it as well.
But under the doctrine of intent, Constitutionally, abortion would be defined legally as murder
Not just a sin and murder under the law is prohibited