Kavanaugh suggested that in his concurring opinion, but that's one justice, and it was a 6-3 decision, and he could change his mind. the Court could well find t

Kavanaugh suggested that in his concurring opinion, but that's one justice, and it was a 6-3 decision, and he could change his mind. the Court could well find that bans on out-of-state abortions are necessary to properly enforce state abortion bans, or uphold a ban on facilitating travel since that occurs inside a state's borders, or that the commerce clause needs to be reigned in anyway, and gee, what an opportune moment to revisit that bit of precedent too. given how the Court just ruled in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, doing nothing but (incorrectly) picking and choosing precedent that supported the outcome they wanted, I'd put approximately zero stock in this Court to be internally consistent whatsoever. except for Gorsuch.