system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The United States has never regressed on social issues at the Federal level and it isn't going to happen now either.

The first part should be easier to CMV than the second part since all you've got to do is show an example where we have regressed on a federal level.  And by regressed, I mean a situation where rights were legally granted either by legislation or clarified as a result of a Supreme Court decision, and then at some later date those rights were taken away at the federal level.

A few caveats:

* Don't tell me about the state representative that tried to make interracial marriage illegal in your state - that isn't on the federal level.

* Don't tell me about state laws that limit access to abortion.  That's not only at the state level, but isn't removing a right (just making it more difficult to exercise).

* I'm going to carve out prohibition.  We were given the right to consume alcohol, that right was taken away, and then that error was corrected.  So we *did* temporarily regress on that one.

* I say "never" in my thread title, but let's limit it to the past century or so.  I'm not sure if there's something that was "progressive" back at the founding that was taken away in the 1800's.

* And this one is going to be the most subjective and blurry, but let's limit it to shit that most people on reddit would actually consider regressive.  So, yeah, we used to have the right to own slaves and beat our wives, and then we "regressed" and can't do that anymore - that ain't what I'm talking about and you know it.

**EDIT**
Since this post is still getting a lot of activity, I guess I should post an update.  There have certainly been regressive laws passed, the Patriot Act being the one that most changed my view.  I still don't think that there is any genuine risk of abortion becoming illegal or gay marriage getting rolled back.  My original view would have been better stated by saying that we currently have no regressive federal laws on the books that are being enforced.  That would still be shot down by the Patriot Act, but most other regressive laws that people have mentioned in the comments have been overturned once we saw the error of our ways.

It is also a difficult discussion because, as I anticipated, the same law can be interpreted as either progressive, or regressive, depending upon your point of view.
gpt
Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act normalized “sneak-and-peek” warrants. These allow law enforcement to raid a suspect’s house without notifying the recipient of the seizure for months.  These orders usually don't authorize the government to actually seize any property — but that won't stop them from poking around your computers.  Again, sneak-and-peek warrants could be used for any investigation, even if the crime was only a misdemeanor.

From 2006-2009, sneak-and-peek warrants were used a total of 1,755 times. Only fifteen of those cases—a microscopic 0.8%—involved terrorism. The rest were used in cases involving drugs or fraud.