Hey, there. My comment was intended to be more of an off-hand remark as I was scrolling through the comments. I wasn't trying to prompt political debate, although I probably should have realized this possibility when I originally commented. I never said or meant to say that there was any sort of effort towards wide-spread book banning at the national level. My comment was more directed at your remark that the U.S. Constitution prevents rights from being taken away.

I don't really think this is the appropriate place to get into a political conversation about the Supreme Court, so I don't want to provoke further conversation. However, I will say this: I actually was not referring to abortion. I am very familiar with substantive due process, but I have no intention of getting into the specific subject of abortion in a subreddit about books (unless the book is about abortion, maybe...). When I wrote that comment, I was actually thinking about a Supreme Court decision that dropped this summer that held a citizen doesn't always have the right to assistance of a lawyer in court, in defiance of the Sixth Amendment. That was the example of the Supreme Court taking away rights—even enumerated rights—despite the Constitution. This was only the first example that popped into my mind, but there are so many examples of this, all unrelated to abortion, that you're welcome to Google.

Take care!