He's not wrong. This is a stupid end-run around what the courts, rightly or wrongly, consider a constitutionally protected right. If you can do it for abortion, you can do it for other things that are considered protected rights.
The issue here though is that abortion isn't in the constitution. It was effectively created by the courts out of whole cloth with the Roe v Wade decision, and not even in the "right to medical privacy" sense that a lot of proponents paint it as. The ruling itself was as narrow as possible to only apply to women seeking an abortion.
Hell, it's not even subject to the same kind of enjoinders that other constitutionally protected rights are. Free speech is restricted by the "fighting words" statute. And the right to bear arms is restricted by requiring background checks and the purchase of specific licenses simply for owning certain weapons, let alone the permits for concealed and open carry in some states. If you try to even suggest a "reasonable restriction" to abortion, you're met with screeching.
Imagine the kind of mental gymnastics that would be performed if someone treated gun rights like abortion today - no one's allowed to stop you from just walking in and buying the weapon. No psych eval, no three-week waiting period, and the government funds a non-profit to pay for it.
The issue here though is that abortion isn't in the constitution. It was effectively created by the courts out of whole cloth with the Roe v Wade decision, and not even in the "right to medical privacy" sense that a lot of proponents paint it as. The ruling itself was as narrow as possible to only apply to women seeking an abortion.
It's 100% made up.
The solution to something that is made up is to target that, not to undermine all other rights by crafting a 'solution' that could potentially be used to undermine any other right.
He's not wrong. This is a stupid end-run around what the courts, rightly or wrongly, consider a constitutionally protected right. If you can do it for abortion, you can do it for other things that are considered protected rights.
The issue here though is that abortion isn't in the constitution. It was effectively created by the courts out of whole cloth with the Roe v Wade decision, and not even in the "right to medical privacy" sense that a lot of proponents paint it as. The ruling itself was as narrow as possible to only apply to women seeking an abortion.
Hell, it's not even subject to the same kind of enjoinders that other constitutionally protected rights are. Free speech is restricted by the "fighting words" statute. And the right to bear arms is restricted by requiring background checks and the purchase of specific licenses simply for owning certain weapons, let alone the permits for concealed and open carry in some states. If you try to even suggest a "reasonable restriction" to abortion, you're met with screeching.
Imagine the kind of mental gymnastics that would be performed if someone treated gun rights like abortion today - no one's allowed to stop you from just walking in and buying the weapon. No psych eval, no three-week waiting period, and the government funds a non-profit to pay for it.
It's 100% made up.
The solution to something that is made up is to target that, not to undermine all other rights by crafting a 'solution' that could potentially be used to undermine any other right.