The Supreme Court has held that adults have the right to personal autonomy in matters relating to their own medical care. Adults, as long as they are competent to understand their decision, have the right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment, though a state may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment ended before it allows termination. A state may restrict family members from terminating treatment for another, because this right belongs to each individual.
But the Supreme also said this (note, I am not arguing the merits, simply sharing the legal justifications for such mandates)
in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members."
And this
Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.
Which was then used in Florida to uphold a mask mandate, after being challenged by citizens. Where they said this:
“no constitutional right is infringed by the Mask Ordinance’s mandate … and that the requirement to swear such a covering has a clear rational basis based on the protection of public health.” More to the point, the Court continued, “constitutional rights and the ideals of limited government do not … allow (citizens) to wholly shirk their social obligation to their fellow Americans or to society as a whole…. After all, we do not have a constitutional right to infect others.”
What does this new "law" say about people who have genuine medical conditions and cant wear one? How can they force someone with medical issues to wear one if they need to travel - isn't that discrimination?
This is the UN revealing itself.
The globalist cabal's plans all assume they capture enough of the world's countries
before declaring the UN as being The single government for the whole world.
Biden's pretend presiduncy has emboldened some of their devotees.
Everything you said!
The Supreme Court has held that adults have the right to personal autonomy in matters relating to their own medical care. Adults, as long as they are competent to understand their decision, have the right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment, though a state may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment ended before it allows termination. A state may restrict family members from terminating treatment for another, because this right belongs to each individual.
https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/docs/privacy-rights/
But the Supreme also said this (note, I am not arguing the merits, simply sharing the legal justifications for such mandates)
And this
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf
Which was then used in Florida to uphold a mask mandate, after being challenged by citizens. Where they said this:
What does this new "law" say about people who have genuine medical conditions and cant wear one? How can they force someone with medical issues to wear one if they need to travel - isn't that discrimination?