>

Not really.  The nature of unenumerated rights is that people will believe that different ones exist.  Dobbs wasn't a repudiation of unemurated rights per se, nor was Roe an endorsement of every unemurated right everyone has ever argued exists.
Wouldn't that be the same as not letting you go to Vegas and gamble if your home state does not have legal gambling? >

Yes. It’s clearly unconstitutional and will never hold up in court. >

I wouldn’t count on it. >

Imagine any State passing laws that are enforceable in any other State. Anyways, all you Texans better pay your California taxes or straight to jail. >

Well the federal gov't sets baseline laws and can willfully pull back funding to states based off of states not following those laws so it's not too hard to imagine. It's not a united states anymore it's a State finding states. >

This sounds strangely similar to the fugitive slave laws and political environment leading up to the civil war to be honest >

Yes, it’s very similar. 
Both are the exact opposite of “states rights.” >

Those proclaiming "states' rights" have never been satisfied with only controlling states.
Hatred is funny that way. >

Also, they've never been satisfied to control just their state. They want every state to follow what they do. >

From my corner of the prairie we'd be happy with controlling our own state/boundary. It's a majority rule in the metro's that try to control us and enact frivolous laws. We aren't interested in laws... just our communities... >


It's a majority rule in the metro's that try to control us and enact frivolous laws

Also known as democracy. >

Some states need to learn how to mind their own business. You know what states I’m talking about. >

California, Utah, and Texas >

If I had to guess, I think that this would get struck down by the Supreme Court. 
Brett Kavanaugh is the swing vote on the Supreme Court and stated in his Dobbs concurrence:
“For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” >

If it was anything less that 9-0 it would be a travesty of justice. >

The simple answer is they can't stop you from doing it in another state and punishing you for doing so would violate your constitutional rights to freely travel between states.
The complicated answer is that requires an insanely partisan SCOTUS to be impartial in a ruling. >

Kavanaugh discusses this exact scenario in his concurring opinion on Dobbs:

Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related le-
gal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially
difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a
State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another
State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no
based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May
a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an
abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect?
In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process
Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of
Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).

So -- at least with the current Court makeup -- you could rely on at least four justices getting the simple answer right.  Roberts likely makes this five. >

It's curious how he replies upon one unenumerated right to dismiss concerns about how he's claiming another unenumerated right doesn't exist, isn't it?