Read up on the 9th amendment, protections need not be explicitly mentioned to exist.

> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

This has been reaffirmed in many subsequent rulings.

Edit: but look at that language. "Without excessive government restriction." Sounds like "Congress shall make no law," doesn't it? Constitution doesn't say I can't sue you for exercising your rights, eh? Limitations are for governments.

Speech and bearing arms are only constitutionally protected in criminal law this is civil law, which the Constitution doesn't apply to[0]. And the supreme did rule that abortion is constitutionally protected, at least thats my understanding of roe v wade.

So parent's arguments stand, if this law stands, free speech and gun rights could be aborted (hehe) by just making them civil cases and giving people the right to sue.

edit: In fact, democrats have tried to do just that, by giving gun violence victims the right to sue the gun shop and gun manufacture. I (and bernie) have opposed such bills, for the same i (and bernie) oppose this bill. its a shortcut around the constitution that shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[0]: its not as simple as this, but thats the jist of it. this is why a civil case can result on the state forcing you to give up money/property without a ruling by a jury, and why the state can force you to pay if you want a jury in such civil cases, but can't in criminal cases. As another example, civil asset forfeiture gives the state the power to take your property without a ruling by a court, let alone a jury, with no need to prove anything, instead requiring you to prove legality. criminal asset forfeiture already exists and requires both of those things, but isn't used in favor of the civil version.

The right to do what you want with your body is too