[throwaway0a5e]

Stop being obtuse. The majority of federal law exists only because broad interpretations of the few subjects the feds were granted the ability to regulate. If abortion was intertwined with interstate commerce or national defense it would be regulated. Of course there's BS that's just as detached as abortion that gets regulated federally but if those subjects were big ideological issues and got the same scrutiny they likely would not be.

It's unfortunate that there isn't a stronger right to bodily autonomy enshrined in the constitution but that's tangential here.

[bpodgursky]

Absent a strict law, congress could just make medicare funding or infrastructure or whatever dependent on abortion access, and every state would fold, just like with the drinking age.

[micromacrofoot]

I'm being quite sincere.

There's still precedent and federal law that protects bodily autonomy in respect to having private medial exchanges with doctors.

We still have the FACE act for example, which is federal law preventing people from blocking the entrance of abortion clinics.

I think we'll find quite soon how much abortion is intertwined with interstate commerce.

[NeonVice]

When I travel between states to partake in a service that is allowed in one state but not another that is not interstate commerce. I'm still conducting intrastate commerce within the state where I am located. The federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate all laws federally just because I can travel to a state with different laws.

Regarding bodily autonomy, it becomes a little tricky to make that argument when a mothers' decisions affect a separate body from her own. A body with its own DNA that happens to rely temporarily on her mother. Is the argument that a mother can kill her healthy child as long as it couldn't survive without her?