From the beginning I have only been talking about how states will conduct themselves, and I have never pretended to have fluency in constitutional law. I follow

From the beginning I have only been talking about how states will conduct themselves, and I have never pretended to have fluency in constitutional law. I follow Supreme Court opinions for the issues I care about, but that does not translate into an arrogance of denigrating the arguments of others as emotional and illogical. In accordance with that, I do not speak on whether SCOTUS is right or wrong. You talk about "reading" things, but this is my original post: > States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas. > This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor. > Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science. I have talked only on the consequences which are to follow in states like TX and how state medical policy ought be conducted — in accordance with mainstream medical practice as developed by national and western consensus among professional medical and scientific bodies. This is precisely the sort of state-level debate that you allege to support, and yet are completely ignoring.