with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?
I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?
A lot of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy do so because they cannot afford to raise another child. To someone living in central Texas, let's say, with three other children and a full-time job with no sick days or other benefits, traveling to, say, Colorado, for the termination would be loss of pay, someone to care for the children, as well as the travel expenses. Many people do not own a car. At least not one that runs. And most clinics require at least a one or two day waiting period from their initial appointment to the actual procedure, which would be paying for a motel, eats, etc. And of course that does not take into account the $600 average for the procedure itself, which is not covered by Medicaid and over half the states providing Obamacare.
It would in many cases make it realistically impossible for a woman to seek a termination of pregnancy if she had to find another state to travel to.
It is hard for me to feel bad for somebody in that position who gets pregnant in the first place. BC pills are a heckuva lot cheaper, probably free in some cases, and so are condoms. Aren't there morning after pills that you can get at a drug store? And of course you can always keep your pants on. Not meaning to be insensitive, but dang, unless it's a rape I would think you should be able to prevent conception.
In a case of rape, I'd say states should allow a woman who reports a rape and goes to an ER or clinic as soon as it's practical to be given the choice of some sort of drug that precludes conception or terminates the pregnancy free of charge. That way she gets what she needs and the rape is on record with whatever data is available. Gotta be a certain window of opportunity though, you don't get to wait until your 2nd trimester to do something about it. JMO.
Re the OP, it's hard for me to justify allowing any state to deny marriage between gays. You shouldn't have to cross state lines to do that, and I think it should be the law of the land. This business of denying somebody a wedding cake is a different matter though, if somebody says I won't do it then go somewhere else and STFU. Hell, you can buy a cake at a supermarket somewhere and decorate it yourself however you want.
Abortion is a little different IMHO, cuz now you're talking about the sanctity of life and that oughta mean something to any civilized society. I am not too happy about ending a potential new life once conceived when there are choices that can be made to prevent the conception in the 1st place, but it's a complex issue that requires some pragmatism mixed in with some compassion. So I can see the need to make BC and morning after pills available as cheaply as possible everywhere; I don't see that as the gov't job to do that, but I also don't see it as the gov'ts job to prevent it either. I would therefore support those options in every state, including the RU-486 drug for pregnancies still in the 1st trimester. After that, sorry kiddo, but you're on your own. If you've done the deed and think you might be pregnant then you better get one of those pregnancy kits and find out PDQ, and then do something about it according to your conscience. As far as surgeries and other procedures after the 12 weeks are up, that ought to be up to the individual states to legislate. They can help pay for them if they want to or outlaw them altogether, whatever the citizens in that state want and vote for.
So, a uniform national law is necessary to ensure certain basic rights are not denied to anybody within reason. Whatever the certain basic rights are and what constitutes 'within reason' would be up to the states, with our judicial system making the final call as to where the line is.
