When a new law is proposed or enacted

One other lesson from Houston, and the voter fraud stuff too, is how to think about a new, proposed law.

Just ask two questions about it:

1) Will it actually prevent a bad thing?
2) Will it actually prevent a good thing?

"Actually" here means, not only as the law is intended, but also as it will be enforced/continued. The "unintended consequences" need to be thought of, too.

If the answer to 1 is "no" why are you bothering with the law at all?
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "no" then by all means, enact the law.
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "yes", it needs to be decided, is the loss of the good thing worth the prevention of the bad thing?

For example: the Houston Transgender Equality law.
1) There's really no way that law can prevent rape, or kidnapping of women, in bathrooms. (How could you even do it? Station police in every women's room to make sure that nobody with a penis goes in?)

Thus, there's no reason for that law. But, anyway
2) it will prevent transgender people from using their preferred gender. Personal comfort and freedom is supposed to be the sum total of goals in the USA. Even if you don't agree with their lives.
(Note: I really don't think that gay/straight or transgender is a conscious choice. It's part of the biological make-up. I'm not going to get into the juvenile, stupid jokes from certain politicians about "finding their feminine side")