it feels kind of inconsistent. prior to roe being overturned the governments were able to regulate abortion to some extent. i assume some abortion medical proce

it feels kind of inconsistent. prior to roe being overturned the governments were able to regulate abortion to some extent. i assume some abortion medical procedures required a licensed doctor and i assume abortion medicine was regulated by the FDA. but at the same time the government was limited in how it could restrict abortion and this was justified by some privacy right which somehow didn't apply to the FDA regulation of abortion or medical licensing related to abortion. also, this same privacy right couldn't be invoked to allow you to take other medicines you might want. if you look at the arguments made in Roe v Wade I'm pretty sure you could claim you are taking recreational drugs as part of your marital sex routine and therefore this right to privacy should be extended to these drugs. i think if you honestly extended the general principal of roe v wade then a let of laws would be unconstitutional.