Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
The only thing hypocritical there is Thomas if he really thinks the Court has no business creating "tolerable degrees of encroachment." What does he think the legal definition of "undue burden" is? Half the courts decisions throughout its history have involved deciding where rights end and where they begin, because only a fool argues that rights are absolute. Laws against inciting riot have stood up in court time and time again, because you do not have an absolute right to free speech.

He's arguing for consistent application of undue burden, and thus believes that this ruling would further confuse the lower courts.

Not sure if that falls in your "hypocritical" bucket.

 Frazzled wrote:

She voted for Iraq
She pushed for the war in Libya
She pushed for war in Syria
She pushed for a "no Fly Zone" in Syria (which means something called MAJOR WAR WITH RUSSIA).
She sold positions to important posts in the State Depratment to donors.
She toook millions from nations and persons who had interests that the State Department was working on at the time.
She's potentially the most corrupt person ever to get near the Presidency.

Those first three things you list could be considered to be warmongering, but are hardly the marks of corruption.

The last two on your list are corruption, but don't seem to be any more corrupt than Reagan (quick google search reveals: Iran-Contra, cabinet rigging contracts in their favor, as well as "numerous" scandals with the EPA), U.S. Grant... To be fair, the articles I'm seeing on Grant say he wasn't corrupt, but his cabinet sure as feth was.... Same thing with Warren Harding. And of course, Nixon who was trying to rig elections.

Don't get me wrong, I think she's corrupt, and I won't be voting for her, but I don't think she's the "most corrupt"

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The claim that it was "to protect the women" was also severely damaged by the argument that it doesn't restrict access because they can go to all the 'unsafe' and 'dangerous' clinics in neighboring states.

And that's very true... however, at some point the states can only control what happens within the state.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.

Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.

I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.

Goalpost... wazzat?

Tell you what... look at the video:

Spoiler:

So what happens here is that people in general form opinions and arrive at conclusions based on partial or erroneous information all the time.

It's what we do. No one is an expert of all things... (unless, they stayed at the Holiday Inn! )

So... when people arrive at a conclusion, then they start becoming vested in that conclusion. Initially, no one wants to be wrong... so, they will put up barriers to defend that from anyone who challenges that conclusion.

Right? I mean... if we're talking about the divergence in our views in politics... that is how we all can arrive with different conclusions/opinions.

What we see here in the above video is that interviewers are circumventing those barriers by asking a very simple, straight-forward question, then offering to show a video. They aren't openly challenging beliefs so are able to slip in an opposing viewpoint that the subjects, for whatever reason, have obviously never thought about.

What happened here is that the viewers had to re-evaluate their conclusions again, faced with different information.

Here's the videos that the viewers saw:

Spoiler:

...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.

With a straight face, I can tell you that these procedures typically do not go awry and are in no way as dangerous as anesthesia.

https://www.womenonweb.org/en/page/561/is-a-medical-abortion-dangerous

http://patient.info/doctor/important-complications-of-anaesthesia

 whembly wrote:

He's arguing for consistent application of undue burden,

Where is the inconsistency? His ideological position that there is no right to privacy doesn't reflect that the rest of the court. Even the other justices who dislike the paradigm established by Roe don't agree with his legal interpretation. That isn't an inconsistency. That's Thomas grinding the same ax he's ground every day since he took the bench, and the only other justice who agreed with him on it is dead now. Thomas however turning around and making an that particular argument is completely hypocritical. What does he think a gag order is? A warrant? There isn't a judge in this country who hasn't issued at least one "encroachment" in their career. It's literally half of what judges do, especially in dealing the constitutional issues. The judiciary invents tolerable degrees of encroachment regularly. In turn, Thomas' creates ad hoc dissents solely to vindicate his legal ideology all the time. So really he's got two hypocrisy's running there.

 LordofHats wrote:
The only thing hypocritical there is Thomas if he really thinks the Court has no business creating "tolerable degrees of encroachment." What does he think the legal definition of "undue burden" is? Half the courts decisions throughout its history have involved deciding where rights end and where they begin, because only a fool argues that rights are absolute. Laws against inciting riot have stood up in court time and time again, because you do not have an absolute right to free speech.

We don't have an absolute right to free speech but we do have a constitutional right to free speech that requires the govt to submit a compelling justification for restricting that right and doing so in a manner that isn't an undue burden. You can point to the section of the constitution that guarantees a right to free speech. What part of the constitution guarantees a right of access to abortion clinics? While I personally agree with this ruling I share Thomas' concern that SCotUS needs to be able to find support within the constitution itself to back up the claim that a law violates a constitutional right and that the court can't invent constitutional rights that can't be found within the document itself just to justify legal opinions.

The constitution is an old document and it's a living document, it doesn't cover every everything that's why it has the amendment process built in. The nation has changed a lot in the last 50 years but the constitution hasn't, it's only been amended 3 times in the last 50 years and the most recent time in 1992 was to ratify an amendment proposed 202 years ago. Instead of trying to constantly twist the constitution around to address new issues that weren't imaginable when the document was written the court should put the responsibility back on the Congress and the states to pass amendments to address new issues that people want the constitution to address.

Prestor Jon wrote:
What part of the constitution guarantees a right of access to abortion clinics? While I personally agree with this ruling I share Thomas' concern that SCotUS needs to be able to find support within the constitution itself to back up the claim that a law violates a constitutional right and that the court can't invent constitutional rights that can't be found within the document itself just to justify legal opinions.

That's a whole other argument entirely.

The court didn't invent a right to access to abortion clinics. The court concluded (over a series of 200 years and dozens of cases), that you have a right to your own person. That's the fundamental principal that underlies the entire BoR, but is not outright stated there in. You have a right to your person. Constitutional law embodied that principal as a right to privacy from governmental intrusion (in the US the legalese term is more usually the "right to be let alone"). It's been around for a very long time (since the mid 1800s w, and Roe v Wade didn't invent it. Roe v Wade simply renamed a specific application of the concept as the "right to privacy" derived as a consequence of the 4th, 9th, 14th Amendments.

The Consitution does not begin and end with the literal words on the page. That was the whole point of the Ninth Amendment, because while the Founding Father's probably couldn't fathom miniature cameras, the internet, or abortion as socially acceptable, they did fathom that the people should not have to hinge the protection of their rights on Congress making a law forbidding itself from violating their rights that it might never make (and they gave us a Court to basically do exactly what the court in Roe v Wade did; slap down the government when it reaches further than its powers allow).

I personally liked how RBG called the state of Texas out on basically, lying...

Prestor Jon wrote:
Instead of trying to constantly twist the constitution around to address new issues that weren't imaginable when the document was written the court should put the responsibility back on the Congress and the states to pass amendments to address new issues that people want the constitution to address.

Which is something I've pointed out numerous times. If Congress just did their jobs and wrote better laws without the petty political agendas poisoning them, half of the cases that get to the SC wouldn't happen to begin with.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Instead of trying to constantly twist the constitution around to address new issues that weren't imaginable when the document was written the court should put the responsibility back on the Congress and the states to pass amendments to address new issues that people want the constitution to address.

Which is something I've pointed out numerous times. If Congress just did their jobs and wrote better laws without the petty political agendas poisoning them, half of the cases that get to the SC wouldn't happen to begin with.

The problem is 'better' laws is a very subjective thing sometimes. Especially with this case in mind.

And if we've learned anything from 200 years of US history, it's that Congress is both slow to act, and happy to experiment with just how far it can push its powers. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Getting basic legislation through the process has never been easy, and passing new Amendments is even harder (almost all Amendments passed since the BoR have been passed at a time when one party had complete control of Federal government, or address basic procedural practices like pay raises, terms, and election procedures).

 LordofHats wrote:
And if we've learned anything from 200 years of US history, it's that Congress is both slow to act, and happy to experiment with just how far it can push its powers. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Getting basic legislation through the process has never been easy, and passing new Amendments is even harder (almost all Amendments passed since the BoR have been passed at a time when one party had complete control of Federal government, or address basic procedural practices like pay raises, terms, and election procedures).

Ya know... Brexit shouldn't have all the fun...

Maybe we should call for The Convention of the States and vote on a wide-range of issues.

PURE.fething.CHAOS!

Right?

That way, the US can be the one fething with the global economy and take the heat off of UK.

On using the No Fly List to produce a list of people who cannot be sold guns... I can't help but think the gun activists are repeating history. With the Brady Act they reacted against a high profile and scary sounding thing, "assault weapon", and moved to ban that. Unsurprisingly the ban did little to curb gun violence because those weapons were responsible for very few shootings. This time around the scary thing is terrorists with guns, and so they're trying to stop that. Except terrorists are doing very little of the shootings in America, despite capturing so much of the media's attention.

The outcome of the Brady Bill was an ineffectual law that eventually lapsed, and the only political result was a stronger conviction among many people that gun laws won't stop gun violence. I think that's something gun control advocates should seriously think about before trying to make a case for this new gun restriction.

 Peregrine wrote:
But it's not just this primary season, it's looking at the general trend of the past few elections. Just look at how Romney, for example, had to campaign on a "look, I'm as much of a raving lunatic as the other guys" platform in the primary then immediately turn around and boast about how moderate and centrist he was.

Sure, but that's true of any process in which you first have to convince the politicians and political activists of the party that you're one of them, and then have to convince the greater population that you're one of them. This more or less happens in every country, the only difference in that elsewhere it largely happens behind closed doors.

This move to fringe followed by a swing back to the centre is more pronounced in the Republican party because that party has been steadily marching off in to cuckoo land over the last couple of decades. It is a reflection of the party, not the process.

The only real difference in 2016 is that the angry far-right voters that the mainstream party had been pandering finally realized that they don't have to settle for whatever mainstream candidate the party leadership offers, they can take over and nominate someone like Trump.

Sure, and it leaves a big question as to whether the Republican party has actually left the reservation. Will they be able to drag their crazies along to the next ballot to support a more sensible candidate, or are they going to spin off with more and more attention grabbing lunatics. It will be some scary but fascinating viewing in four (or possibly eight) years time.

But if you look at Obama you see a candidate who won his primary in large part by making vague promises of "hope and change" and getting a target audience to vote in above-average numbers. It was just fortunate for the democrats that they were almost guaranteed to win no matter who they nominated, so any questions of the relative merits of Obama vs. Clinton were mostly irrelevant.

Yeah, things probably would have played out better for Democrats if Clinton won in '08. It would have given Obama another 8 years to work and learn the rules of Washington, so he probably would have hit the ground running this year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I think you're letting your personal political views color your perceptions a bit too much. The candidates you consider to be "raving lunatics" are popular enough to get millions of votes and win nominations. It's a natural byproduct of opening up the primary process to voters.

Democracy is important and so the ability to win lots of votes might make a person a legitimate political power, but that has nothing to do with whether or not that person is in fact a complete idiot with little to no understanding of what is important in government.

For instance, Donald Trump won more primary votes than any other Republican. And in the general election he will likely win something north of 50 million votes. But he is still incredibly poorly informed about the world, and has the decision making of a petulant child. I'm not sure 'raving lunatic' is the description I'd choose for him, but it's probably close enough.

Again, though, the issue isn't the primary, the issue is with the Republican party, who've steadily fed their base a diet of crazy bs, and are now looking in amazement as their base is acting on that crazy bs.

 whembly wrote:

What happened here is that the viewers had to re-evaluate their conclusions again, faced with different information.

All of the viewers were fairly indecisive, they had not reached a definite conclusion. They were pressed to give a response, to arrive at a conclusion off the cuff; a classic push-polling tactic.

I also like how the video they were shown used a representation of a fetus at about week 13, not about week 5. Or, if they were being honest about the matter, about week 8; prior to which ~66% of abortions occur.

 whembly wrote:

...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.

Oh, they can, but they usually don't. My knee, elbow, and shoulder surgeries could have gone awry, but they didn't. Any time you submit yourself to medical procedure, the possibility of complications exists.

Medical professionals are not God's, but they are pretty good at what they do.

 whembly wrote:

That way, the US can be the one fething with the global economy and take the heat off of UK.

Yeah, that's pretty Trump like.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
With a straight face, I can tell you that these procedures typically do not go awry and are in no way as dangerous as anesthesia.

https://www.womenonweb.org/en/page/561/is-a-medical-abortion-dangerous

http://patient.info/doctor/important-complications-of-anaesthesia

Exactly. We don't have to bother with videos of random people trying to decide what to think of abortion, and we don't have to look at a description of the procedure and try to speculate about how dangerous we think it sounds. We can consult the experts and the statistics on the observed rates of problems requiring hospitalization and get a clear answer to the question. And when we look at the facts we see that abortion is a low-risk medical procedure, comparable to various other low-risk things that are commonly done outside of a hospital. There is no medical justification for singling out abortion for tighter restrictions, it is purely an attempt to drive abortion providers out of business.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

She voted for Iraq
She pushed for the war in Libya
She pushed for war in Syria
She pushed for a "no Fly Zone" in Syria (which means something called MAJOR WAR WITH RUSSIA).
She sold positions to important posts in the State Depratment to donors.
She toook millions from nations and persons who had interests that the State Department was working on at the time.
She's potentially the most corrupt person ever to get near the Presidency.

Those first three things you list could be considered to be warmongering, but are hardly the marks of corruption.

Nor are they meant to. They show incompetence.

The last two on your list are corruption, but don't seem to be any more corrupt than Reagan (quick google search reveals: Iran-Contra, cabinet rigging contracts in their favor, as well as "numerous" scandals with the EPA), U.S. Grant... To be fair, the articles I'm seeing on Grant say he wasn't corrupt, but his cabinet sure as feth was.... Same thing with Warren Harding. And of course, Nixon who was trying to rig elections.

Iran Contra didn't drop $200mm in Reagan's pocket.

However it comes down to a simple equation. If you like how things are going you vote Hillary. She is the penultimate establishment candidate. If you don't there's Johnson or the other guy.

Sad to say that I live in a state that is headed by a governor who has forgotten that the state and church are supposed to be separate....

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/31/branstads-bible-proclamation-unconstitutional/85198296/

Long story short:
Branstad in April signed a proclamation "in the name and by the authority of the state of Iowa," that encouraged people to attend an open bible reading in all 99 counties.

In fact....

I just reported for jury duty and the bible reading crew were parked out in front of the court house, on government property.

I am fine with people having faith. I have had it...however...I do not want my government or elected officials promoting religion.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Sad to say that I live in a state that is headed by a governor who has forgotten that the state and church are supposed to be separate....

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/31/branstads-bible-proclamation-unconstitutional/85198296/

Long story short:
Branstad in April signed a proclamation "in the name and by the authority of the state of Iowa," that encouraged people to attend an open bible reading in all 99 counties.

In fact....

I just reported for jury duty and the bible reading crew were parked out in front of the court house, on government property.

I am fine with people having faith. I have had it...however...I do not want my government or elected officials promoting religion.

From that article:

Ginny Caligiuri, an organizer of the Iowa event and a board member and a state director of the Iowa Prayer Caucus, called the concept of separation of church and state “a fallacy.” The roots of that doctrine were to protect religions, not government, she said.

Oh dear

 Frazzled wrote:

However it comes down to a simple equation. If you like how things are going you vote Hillary. She is the penultimate establishment candidate. If you don't there's Johnson or the other guy.

Ehh, for me, it's not even a matter how whether I like the way things are going, it's more, "do I think things will get worse by voting X?" In this case, I think both Trump and Johnson are bad, but for wildly different reasons (and we don't really need to discuss why Trump is bad.... well, we might need to break out the crayons for some users ).

And thats the thing. You think things will get worse with the other guy.

Millions disagree. They feel that things are worse now and have to change. They felt that with the Sanders campaign. They felt that with the Tea Party campaign. They felt that with Trump, and they felt that in England. Now they are feeling that in France, the Netherlands, and even Germany.

We'll see who wins.

 Frazzled wrote:
And thats the thing. You think things will get worse with the other guy.

Millions disagree. They feel that things are worse now and have to change. They felt that with the Sanders campaign. They felt that with the Tea Party campaign. They felt that with Trump, and they felt that in England. Now they are feeling that in France, the Netherlands, and even Germany.

We'll see who wins.

The establishment will eventually win... we're in the Calvin Ball era...

Also... a certain committee finally released a certain report that fully implicates you know who and She Who Will Not Be Named.

I should have noted.

I am not a Trump supporter. But as predicted with the Great Recession, I think we are finally seeing the political impact of that. Things will change, here and in Europe. It has already started in England.

if the status quo does not change, there will be revolution, either political or otherwise. Trump and Sanders are the harbingers of that.

I agree with Frazzled, though I think revolution is too strong a word.

A lot of the social impulse behind the Brexit vote and the Trump vote is a generalised discontent about the bad situation that "ordinary people" (which means about the bottom 66% of the population nowadays) who are suffering from job insecurity, poor or negative income growth, and declining social welfare.

They can see the power elite are as rich or even richer than before and not unnaturally have looked for reasons why this situation has arisen.

Unfortunately a lot of the blame has been directed at 'diffrunt people' rather than the decisions of governments to allow the trickle down effect to lift up the lower orders.

This didn't work, of course, but the discontent has only intensified.

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
What part of the constitution guarantees a right of access to abortion clinics? While I personally agree with this ruling I share Thomas' concern that SCotUS needs to be able to find support within the constitution itself to back up the claim that a law violates a constitutional right and that the court can't invent constitutional rights that can't be found within the document itself just to justify legal opinions.

That's a whole other argument entirely.

The court didn't invent a right to access to abortion clinics. The court concluded (over a series of 200 years and dozens of cases), that you have a right to your own person. That's the fundamental principal that underlies the entire BoR, but is not outright stated there in. You have a right to your person. Constitutional law embodied that principal as a right to privacy from governmental intrusion (in the US the legalese term is more usually the "right to be let alone"). It's been around for a very long time (since the mid 1800s w, and Roe v Wade didn't invent it. Roe v Wade simply renamed a specific application of the concept as the "right to privacy" derived as a consequence of the 4th, 9th, 14th Amendments.

The Consitution does not begin and end with the literal words on the page. That was the whole point of the Ninth Amendment, because while the Founding Father's probably couldn't fathom miniature cameras, the internet, or abortion as socially acceptable, they did fathom that the people should not have to hinge the protection of their rights on Congress making a law forbidding itself from violating their rights that it might never make (and they gave us a Court to basically do exactly what the court in Roe v Wade did; slap down the government when it reaches further than its powers allow).

Yes, SCotUS ruled that our right to our own person covers women choosing to have minor elective medical procedures like abortion. However, access to minor elective medical procedures are placed under state restrictions all the time. It's currently illegal for a minor to get a tattoo in Texas without parental consent yet it's legal for a minor to get an abortion without parental consent. If Texas passed a state law making it unlawful for minors to get abortions without parental consent and that if a minor lied about her age to get an abortion she could be charged with a class B misdemeanor would that be constitutional? Texas requires a licensed physician, nurse practicioner or physician's asssistant to put prospective patients through a 10 step screening process before allowing them to undergo nonsurgical cosmetic procedures. Is that an unconstitutional undue burden on citizens' right to their own person? Is the constitutionality of the level of state restriction on these elective minor medical procedures consistently enforced by the courts?

The 2nd amendment conveys a clear right to keep and bear arms but even after the McDonald and Miller SCotUS decisions we still have states like CA, NJ and NY that have extremely difficult procedures to get a carry permit and gun laws that make it effectively impossible and unlawful to bear arms in those states while the majority of the states have more simple procedures and less restrictive laws. Where is the consistency in the courts in allowing extreme regulation of some constitutional rights by states but not allowing the same degreee of restrictions to be imposed on other rights? As Thomas wrote, you either have constitutional rights or you don't and if we have them then the courts should be able to consistently enforce the degree to which those rights can be regulated and restricted by the states.

I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.

The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?

Abortion violates the morality of several modern religions. The religious want to impose their morality on everyone, whether they want it or not.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.

The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?

If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?

Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.

I think for the reason I gave above.

To amplify, an abortion, a tattoo and removing an ingrown toe-nail are all in one sense minor surgical procedures. However they differ greatly in terms of timing and social impact, so it's foolish to pretend they are all identical before the law.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.

The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?

If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?

Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.

You're making an argument the dissent made as well-that it appears the courts are far more enthusiastic about protecting some rights, but not others.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.

The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?

If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?

Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.

Because the effects of not having an abortion are much, much more expensive, life altering and potentially dangerous than the effects of not having a tattoo.

 jasper76 wrote:
Abortion violates the morality of several modern religions. The religious want to impose their morality on everyone, whether they want it or not.

Religion doesn't explain why it's legal for NJ to restrict my 2A rights to the point of imprisoning me for traveling to see family there with my lawfully owned guns stored in my luggage in my car. That seems like a pretty heavy undue burden on my constitional rights. If that's legal then why isn't it legal for Texas to impose extremely harsh restrictions on abortion access? My right to my own person isn't afforded any stronger constitutional protection than my right to keep and bear arms. There's not much legal consistency there.