Oops. Their Covid narrative got peer reviewed in The Lancet (now officially printed on toilet paper to save time). "Why is this SO important? The 1905 SCOTUS case Jacobson v Mass. held that mandates can only be considered to “prevent the spread of contagious disease.” And now, OOPS, they DON'T
(media.greatawakening.win)
⚠️ Vax-tarded ☠️
Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) is often cited as proof that the state can mandate a vaccine. There are a couple of differences between now and then: Jacobson was over a $5 fine, not the loss of one's livelihood; the smallpox vaccine was over 100 years old at that point; the smallpox vaccine is just that, a vaccine.
The case led directly to the pro-eugenics decision in Buck v. Bell (1927), after which a young Carrie Buck was forcibly sterilized.
It's also has been implicitly overturned many times, perhaps most famously (or infamously) by Woe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which were all about bodily autonomy and privacy. So where are all the pro-choice advocates when it comes to forced injections? Calling them pro-death makes their stance more clear, I think.
Woe v Wade? Typo or is this an "I see what you did here"?
No typo. The essence of Woe v. Wade is "My body; my choice," which directly contradicts the ruling of Jacobson v Massachusetts, and has been the by-words of the left for 50 years, but not any longer for some reason.
Whatever our feelings on Woe, it does overturn Jacobson. Not for the right reasons, since there is another body involved, but it does say that one's body is theirs alone.