I'm a European finishing up law school and have really come to my faith during the last couple of years. Baptised & confirmed as a child but took me quite some time to come into my faith. I was quite left wing and liberal in most attitudes up until this. In my university most of the young individuals are quite zealous and trad in their beliefs, and while I respect this it means we come from a different perspective on a number of things. Generally I don't think the legal system should be wholly predicated on Catholic morality, not least because of the pluralistic socieites we see in the West today. Most of them would think (non-abortive) contraceptives should be illegal, which I wouldn't agree with, as well not believing there should be something like Civil Unions for Same-sex couples, which I would probably say is not justified in excluding two individuals who have been in a lifelong romantic partnership from rights akin to those in marriage; I would have a similar view on divorce/remarriage, which is pretty relevant in my country as we only removed a constitutional ban on divorce in the mid 90s. I'd generally say protecting free will and autonomy over oneself is paramount, especially because I don't think we should compell people to believe what they believe.
One thing I've never really gotten a clear answer for, and have butted heads with a few people on is the legality of abortion in cases of rape. While I'm obviously against abortion being legal overall, by recognising the humanity & dignity associated with that for children in the womb, I can't see a fair legal argument for why an individual who has been deprived a choice in sex should be mandated in law to keep their pregnancy. Obviously I recognise that there is no less dignity possessed by a child concieved via sexual assault vs a child cocieved of a loving and caring couple, but the human dignity of the child is not the ultimate argument against abortion for me, but rather that in ordinary means an individual has engaged in behaviour wherein pregnancy (even if steps are taken to mitigate the likliehood of that) is a natural consequence. I would see conception as a result of Sexual Assault as almost indistinguishable from the Violin analogy, and while I think Trent Horn's analysis and response to this is fairly compelling on a basis of personal morality (ie. your kidneys are for you, a uterus is for a child, that is the natural purpose of those things) it hasn't convinced me why it should be illegal. I would be entirely open to be convinced otherwise, I believe I have a well formed conscience on this even if it's not wholly in line with church teaching (which seems to be that a Catholic can support abortion legislation with these exceptions if it's the only means by which restrictions are likely to succeed)
Another question if surrogacy, my jurdistiction is preparing to implement a regulated model of gestational surrogacy (one wherein the surrogate mother has no genetic link to the child in their womb) on altruistic grounds. I have much fewer issues with complete blanket bans on surrogacy and would prefer a model as seen in Italy wherein international and domestic surrogacy is banned for its citizens. It is really just an affront on natural law, and that is even without the further deaths of embryos that are associated with it. The reality is, however, we have had zero policies on IVF in this country in history, no regulation or recongition whatsoever, and in the time this technology has been available hundreds of couples here have underwent the process. These genetic mothers, whilst not carrying the child or giving birth to them, have no legal recognition as mothers of their child. They cannot access any parental benefits & are practically legal strangers to their children. This doesn't seem particularly fair to me, considering the surrogate mother is not recognised as a mother in the jurdistiction they live (usually the US or Ukraine), they have no genetic link to the child, and they likely have no presence in the child's life whatsoever after birth. Probably what is most important is the wellbeing of the child, and this doesn't to be particularly helpful for said child. You could, potentially, have situations wherein a woman who has had a child through surrogacy is unable to leave an abusive partner due to her not being the legal mother of the child.
Just want to stress that I'm not seeking clarity on wether these specific acts themselves are moral, I'm fully aware of the church's teachings and am in agreement with them, but rather what policies and legislative frameworks are acceptable for catholics to vote for, legislate, or support.