Mattingly at GetReligion lists some questions he would ask candidates at “debates”. He’s fully realistic about the idiocy of these “debates”, and acknowledges that he’s dealing in wishful fantasy.
Some of the questions are thorny. “If states shouldn’t interfere with parental rights by requiring trans surgery, what about circumcision?”
The thorns go away when you strip off all the complexities of “court” “decisions” and “rights”. The original constitution was not a declaration of “rights”, though it hid behind the fashionable nonsense of “rights”. It was simply a negotiated contract between the brand new federal government and the very old colonies, who had been running their own affairs for 150 years.
The basic rule is perfectly clear. Modularity. The federal government will deal with foreign countries and international rules of navigation. The federal government will handle disputes between the colonies. In short, any action that has effects outside the boundary of one colony will be regulated by the central controller. Everything inside the boundary is PURELY under the control of each colony.
Medical procedures do not involve foreign countries and do not impinge on other states, so they are purely state concerns.
The first amendment says nothing at all about the states. It ONLY says that the federal regulators must MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS on questions of speech and religion and publication.
Polistra's Mill 