Because if a lifeform that resembled a fertilized egg, even a day old, was found on let's say Mars, it would be the most important scientific discovery in History.
Checkmate
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
A central component of R v W concerns the privacy of a woman's health. When they ask for proof of vaccination, they are breaking HIPAA laws and the Privacy Act. If R v W is overturned then they could say the HIPAA laws and Privacy Act are moot. This would make it harder to successfully sue over vaccine mandates.
They can say and argue whatever nonsense they want. They are losing, they will continue to lose and we're not going back to whatever they want.
Privacy of health concerns are not limited within RvW though. They exist outside of it, do they not? Because they used privacy of women's health to pass rvw doesn't mean that overturning would overturn HIPAA or the Privacy Act, that would have to happen elsewhere.
We will never truly be able to sue over the mandates, that was just pushed as a way to make us less likely to be worried about the mandates. There is a bunch that we would have to overturn to be able to sue over vaccination, vaccination damage (there is a slush fund but this isn't the cause of anyone being sued it is hush money set aside to push NDAs on the people that experience negative side effects) and you consented to be governed when you voted. That would include mandates.
Our only hope here is to argue that the mandates are unconstitutional, vote no confidence in those that pushed them to get those people out and hopefully get people involved that are in favor of returning to the Republic