The Constitution also says,

> [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Which is the go-to argument for federal control over things. If you pay for it, and buy it from another state, then the feds can regulate it.

It seems perfectly legal to make a federal law that states don't have the power to block access to medications produced in elsewhere. Nor do they have the power to prosecute people for buying such medications, regardless of the effects, from businesses which have locations in multiple states.

I think you would have better luck arguing the equal protection clause. The commerce clause can be used to strike down a state trying to prevent it's citizens getting abortions in other states, but cannot be used to restrict the laws of a single state.

In an ideal world, SCOTUS would point to the Ninth Amendment, say, "this seems like an un-enumerated constitutional right" and allow it.

But since we don't yet live in that world, we need every argument we can find, no matter how flimsy or contrived. Because, despite having a solid foundation sitting right there, we are forced to build on top of a patchwork of whatever else we see laying around.

Or we can just pass a law, instead of allowing judges to do so.

Remember that the supreme court has a somewhat checkered history. IT is the least of the democratic branches, but has unarguably limitless rights.

What is the supreme court decided that I had a in-numerated constitutional right to have slaves? Or a un-enumerated right to not have Japanese or Chinese in my state. These are not hypothetical.

Which is meaningless now that the USSC has determined that it's fine if people sue over abortions they suspect may have happened.

> To the people == legislative branch.

This is the first time I've seen that assertion.