It does read like I believe the US has a universalised healthcare and I've written it that way because I'm British and the whole private company thing is less common over here - but I think the argument still stands.

The Government interferes by setting the legal structure in which everyone operates. It does not have to be the provider - it can regulate instead. Which is closer to what is happening in the US. The regulation has moved from the Federal level to the individual State level.

The Government has indeed interfered in the option to purchase this service. In that way it's more similar to prohibition and alcohol. People can still attempt to get the service they want where it is legally available or they can get it illegally on a state by state basis. However, unless you're prepared to argue the right to drink alcohol is also a bodily autonomy question, then I think my reasoning is sound. If you're prepared to argue that it is a bodily autonomy issue then I'm going to suggest that all illegal drugs be made illegal too... because the same argument applies there as well.

I've addressed rape at the end of the article - which is an infringement of bodily autonomy by another citizen. I believe in such cases that abortion should always be offered and should always be offered alongside free therapy.

And yes, I agree... the Dobbs decision is exactly that. It's an infringement on the choices available based on Christian doctrine of how sex should be part of a family values system and not a liberal hobby. However, the mechanism they've used to enact such a world is entirely contained within the democratic process which gives everyone else two options. Either acceptance, civil disobedience, or rebellion. The middle choice is what worked for prohibition.

The law is wrong, the limiting of choice is wrong (in my opinion) - but it is not a bodily autonomy issue and there are plenty of debates raging in this comments section back and forth to suggest this is complicated.

Thanks for dropping by :o)