https://time.com/6122144/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-mississippi-abortion/
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/30/texas-mississippi-abortion-supreme-court/
I doubt it will go this way, but I think it is a possibility we have to be prepared for...
If SCOTUS rules that the Government does have "control over a woman's body to make individual medical decisions" such that it can prevent her from getting an abortion, then that sets precedent that the Government has direct control over the medical procedures one undergoes.
That creates a trojan horse to allow forced vaccinations.
Those forced vaccinations, as we've known for a while now, by-and-large causes spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, and stillborn births.
So by sacrificing legalized abortion through 9 months, supported by us who dislike the abortion on demand rulings, they are able to shoe-horn in forced vaccination.
They can potentially use it to have their cake and eat it too.
That is possibly why higher courts are dismissing vaccine cases. They know what is coming over the horizon, and they can't have any legislation to interfere with the upcoming ruling of "the Government can make medical decisions for individuals for the good of others."
Is this something to look out for?
Thoughts?
On another note, my stance is this: abortion laws should be completely State-decided legislation. The Federal government can fuck right off.
If I had MY way, abortion would carry the same charges as murder.
But... banning abortion outright is just as bad as what we have now. The Federal government has too much power as it is, and this has ALWAYS overstepped their bounds.
Even entertaining the thought that the Federal government has a say in abortion law is a gross attack on our Constitutional Republic. The Federal government never should have had that power to begin with, so all this legislation on its face is uncouth, unfounded, and un-American.
States were designed by the Founding Fathers to have sole authority on how to govern their citizens, not the Federal government. The Federal government was only supposed to involve themselves with legislation that involves inter-State commerce and relations including Military efforts to ensure States that wanted to be in the Union would be protected.
Anything a State can decide and manage on their own should be off limits. States should be able to succeed and fail on their own; due to their own policies. Abortion policies always fail without Government intervention and funding. The only reason we still have abortion clinics nation-wide is because the Federal Government subsidizes them.
Cut the FED out of this crap and the abortion industry disappears nation-wide overnight.
You make solid points. My opinion is that banning the right to choose is such a liberal hotbed, the SCOTUS won't have the balls to touch it.
It'd be fascinating if these cases somehow broke down the national division on abortion or at least regionalized it.
If the goal is to have us united, we either need to agree on a policy or come to respectfully accept state differences. So which of those endpoints do these cases land us at?
Sorry but this is FUD... Banning a medical procedure because it kills another person (the supreme court case will be decided on personhood) will not establish precedent for forcing medical procedures. Talking about what is permitted vs what is mandatory.
Abortion has never been about "the woman's own body," that's a leftist talking point.
I'm all for "state's rights" but the federal government must be able to establish and rule on shared common law like murder.
The law is also clear that any medical procedure job requirement must be clearly outlined why it's required, allow for reasonable accommodations if declined, and allow for honest religious exemptions (that don't have to be part of an organization). If a company fires you without these things, it is grounds for a lawsuit.
I’ve had exactly the same concerns, and I’m staunchly pro-life. My fight has always been for the hearts and minds of women, fighting for them and their babies… and not for government or politicians to make these decisions.
Unfortunately the cat is completely out of the bag with abortions. I believe they are evil, and they are murder, and they do no good for women and obviously not the baby. But they are ubiquitous now and can be sought out anywhere and at any stage.
I think a better approach like you said is state by state making their own decisions. Abortion facilities are usually run down, unsafe, unsanitary, and injurious to women many times. Just from that aspect many clinics would be shut down by not complying with health regulations. I think there are ways to nearly eradicate abortion without having the government or Supreme Court make rulings on it.
Ironically, Dobbs who is bringing this case to the Supreme Court, has been staunchly pro-vax, was a Bernie Sanders supporter, and his son did vaccine research over the summer. He’s all about the vaccines and Covid panic in MS.
"control over a womans body via medical decisions" is not the issue on the table.
The issue is about protecting the innocent from the direct actions of another in lethal situations.
Being sick and someone catching that sickness is not a victim and perpetrator scenario unless there is some sort of intentional malicious action like an HIV person injecting someone with their blood.
In the case of abortion, the issue is someone choosing to the end the life of another without cause. Direct and deliberate willful termination of another. that is not allowed and that does not translate over to vaccines and their mandating.
The left is always trying to equate killing kids to a right or body autonomy. Those rights exist at the point of choosing who to have sex with and society fully agrees a woman has a right to make those decisions. Nothing should be forced onto them just like nothing should be forced onto an unborn woman. She has rights too and you cant kill her because you want to force your beliefs on her.