[dillondoyle]

That loses the context of what I wrote. I'm trying to say that basically one of these two things are true.

if this ruling's argument is: ( unenumerated && !fit with history/traditions 200 years ago ) == states can ban

then every other 'right' we have like gay marriage, contraception, porn, anal sex, basically anything not written in the constitution that a bunch of white people 200 years ago didn't do regularly, could be made illegal state by state.

OR

This is a sham justification to further their religious beliefs and the ruling should simply write that a fetus has some type of special rights that supersede.

At least that ruling would be honest about their obvious bias and plain intent.