52
Comments (20)
sorted by:
11
Foomer 11 points ago +11 / -0

Still not taking the vax or using a vax pass or giving up my guns. Kek.

2
FiveDogs 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly, codified or not, humans have a right to privacy. Each person can choose how much privacy wanted/enforced. The Second Amendment codifies the opportunity to prepare for enforcement of privacy.

8
Supertots 8 points ago +8 / -0

I’m reading the case right now and the fourteenth amendment applies to personal rights with regard to health privacy. It says that the court only considered abortion rights and mentions a forced vaccination case (Jacobson v Massachusetts) which they refused to recognize for roe v wade. Interestingly, for the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, it was ruled that a state can require or enforce smallpox vaccinations…the dude who refused it was found guilty because they ruled it didn’t violate the 14th amendment. This is the case that needs overturned. There’s a lot more detail obv but that’s what I got from it just skimming the case on the Supreme Court website.

8
Richone 8 points ago +8 / -0

Did hippa law require medical privacy? I think it most certainly does.

6
JeremiahKassin 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes, which is why the whole argument is moot. There's no way they can claim HIPAA violates the constitution, so we already have a law on the books covering this.

6
antiworldorder2 6 points ago +6 / -0

Is that true? Roe v Wade was about medical history being keep private/not about abortion?

11
M-I-vet 11 points ago +11 / -0

No. People are free to say any stupid shit they want to. Within that ocean of garbage and misinformation it is up to all of us to become good at separating what is true from all the lies. That is called discernment.

For example, there are other laws and other ways to protect medical privacy. Abortion and medical privacy are not inextricably linked, as the OP wants you to believe. This entire contrived argument is a lie.

2
antiworldorder2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks, I wasn't sure if you were agreeing with the OP's view. My bad..

4
OldBlindSpudFarmer 4 points ago +4 / -0

In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.[6]

1
escapefromearth 1 point ago +1 / -0

no, it's a desperate fear mongering excuse to get the right to let go of this

5
tomthung 5 points ago +6 / -1

Can you guys back the truck up! It does not matter what they think they can do, YOU are a free man, (or women) so start acting like it. edit: besides, how are you free if they can kill any baby they want? the most vulnerable humans on earth and we let them.

5
lsvogel 5 points ago +5 / -0

Everyone is missing the 40,000 ft view here. The whole R v W unconstitutional law is about giving the POWER to decide back to each state. Let the States decide by legislation what is law.

The 40,000 ft view is reducing big gov't and SCOTUS rulings like this so that the 50 states are in control of their legislation for their own state citizens. Let the citizens of each state vote-in their representatives to enact laws that represent their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. And not a 'one size fits all' Bloated Federal Government.

3
escapefromearth 3 points ago +3 / -0

They didn't respect our medical privacy before this, thinking they suddenly would if we keep RvW is false logic.

Truth of the matter is, that reversing RvW puts this entire issue back to the states, which is the best thing not only for abortion, but I trust my state to not mandate vaccines more than I trust the fed gov.

2
sleepydude 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's not law, so it can't be repealed.

Roe v. Wade was a ruling. It can only be overturned, and definitely not by reps.

Roe v. Wade doesn't deal with medical history, only access to abortion through the ruling. The initial law stands unless the Supreme Court hear an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT case challenging the core of the law's statutes.

This just can't happen, unless no one is paying attention to what is factually written down and they just ignore due procedure in court and legislation.

2
FiveDogs 2 points ago +2 / -0

If this is the case why all the trouble with vax mandates and companies attempting to force sharing of status?

2
EnoughGunControl 2 points ago +2 / -0

Better give justifications to this. This is big

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
winn 1 point ago +1 / -0

I doubt it. Repel that shit now

1
BigMuddyMama 1 point ago +1 / -0

My thought when this leaked was that it was some underhanded way to show that the feds were putting the rights back in the state's hands, but that it could eventually be used as a gateway not only for abortion rights by state, but making other tyrannical medical laws, such as making vaccines a must-have to work and thrive. Like most people here at GAW, I was cautiously optimistic as it's release was not only contrived, but extremely controversial... so I wondered initially what the Cabal had to gain and arrived at the above conclusion. Still, though, as many people have said in the comments in this thread, we are free people and the government can pretend they own us, but it is up to us to show them that we're not wearing the shackles.

1
QuackQuack 1 point ago +1 / -0

I heard it's also about state rights and if passed, will open the door to abolishing stupid federal agencies like the m1NisTrY of tRuF

1
Kamalas_a_Bitch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nope