Implied contracts are everywhere, so by that argument the Feds could legislate on just about anything, and that was not the deal. It it were then many states would not have ratified the Constitution. It was very difficult to get their agreement to the limited jurisdiction proposed at the Convention.

>the commerce clause says so
No, the Commerce Clause says “To regulate Commerce with forign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes.”

So unless you live in one state, and the doctor you are asking to perform the abortion in another, the commerce clause would not apply.

I have seen the commerce clause, in conjunction with the “necessary and proper” clause at the end of section 8 to justify more federal power grabs than any other clause. (with the “promote the General Wellfare” found in the pre-amble a close second )

And “regulate” in this clause is meant to be “to make regular”, as in equal, fair, etc. It is to keep, say, Indiana from imposing a tarriff on goods from Ohio. Or to prevent Maryland from banning goods made in Pennsylvania. It is not “REGULATE” as we use it by unfortunate precedent today to mean “Completely control”.

>individual states are somehow “ultimately” sovereign
You are correct: they are not ultimately soverign. They must operate within the general framework of the greater republic, and certain rights are NOT granted to the states. These rights denied to the individual states are clearly enumerated in the consitution. They may not mint coin, raise armies, or conduct separate foreign policy, for example. But in issues where the Constitution does not enumerate powers to the federal government, (See Article 9 and 10 of BoR) the states decide how they each want to handle those items.

>I think it’s an attempt to get a free ride on the efforts of others.
I don’t understand how. Please explain further.