The right to privacy

[URedskin54]

The other victim here is SCOTUS itself. Who will view it as a non-political and principled?

I don’t know that I ever considered it non-political and principled….we have had multiple justices suggest that the death penalty itself might be cruel and unusual punishment and therefore illegal, even though the death penalty is explicitly allowed for in the constitution. But the only thing about this (potential) decision that would make it seem political or unprincipled would be for the justices to change their minds based on public/media blowback.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

Apparently the concept of 'settled law' and precedent meant zip when to Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch when they met with senators to assure them of their allegiance to it.

“Settled law” is not an absolute principle. If it were, we would still have “separate, but equal” segregated schools.

Alito laid out in his opinion why there were sufficient reasons to override the general Supreme Court principle of stare decisis.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

This decision should not be a states rights issue, as it's covered by the 14th amendment.

Which part of the 14th amendment?

Are you referring to “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”? That sentence means that federal law supersedes state law. But there is no federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

If you’re referring to the “due process” portion, please explain how that is applicable to returning abortion law-making back to the states (where it resided for 200 years before Roe).

If you’re referring to the “equal protection” portion, please explain, same as above.

And one can’t make the argument that the 14th amendment covers abortion “because Roe says so”. That’s arguing in a circle because that’s the entire debate! Alieto, et al. are claiming that Roe was *wrong* when it said the 14th amendment covered abortion.

You have to interpret the lifeform in the womb as being inherently human, and that's not a settled interpretation.

How could it not be inherently human? It is a genetically distinct member of the human species, homo sapien. It is not a dog. It is not a monkey. It is not a cactus. It is and can only be human. And I would pose the same question from point #6 again: If it’s not human, what is it?

It might not effect them if only WV tries to ban interfacial marriage.

I will bet $100 with anyone on this board that no state will ban interracial marriage in the next 5 years following this decision (assuming it holds). Chris can be our middle man and hold the money!

No it does not.

I’ve given my definition of when human life begins (conception), and backed it up with a basic outline of my reasoning (see point #6 above). I am prepared to defend that definition scientifically, philosophically, and morally.

Instead of just flatly disagreeing with my definition without any arguments or evidence or alternative definition, please give us your definition of when human life begins, along with some basic reasoning to back it up.

 

[astonmartin708]

By all means continue to hyperventilate but I can confidently say there will be no states attempting to ban interracial marriage. It’s absurd to pretend that there will be. Wouldn’t put it past some rando state rep to try to put forth something dumb, but every state legislature would soundly reject such an attempt.

That's beyond the point. The fact that they won't do it, doesn't excuse the fact that the method used to protect it in the first place will be gone. You're excusing the fact that the same rational that was used to make it a social norm in the first place is now being stripped from it and other important freedoms that we currently have federally; which is simply an incorrect form of justice and liberty.

 

[astonmartin708]

“Settled law” is not an absolute principle. If it were, we would still have “separate, but equal” segregated schools.

Alito laid out in his opinion why there were sufficient reasons to override the general Supreme Court principle of stare decisis.

His reasoning was fundamentally flawed though.

 

[astonmartin708]

Which part of the 14th amendment?

Are you referring to “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”? That sentence means that federal law supersedes state law. But there is no federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

If you’re referring to the “due process” portion, please explain how that is applicable to returning abortion law-making back to the states (where it resided for 200 years before Roe).

If you’re referring to the “equal protection” portion, please explain, same as above.

And one can’t make the argument that the 14th amendment covers abortion “because Roe says so”. That’s arguing in a circle because that’s the entire debate! Alieto, et al. are claiming that Roe was *wrong* when it said the 14th amendment covered abortion.



How could it not be inherently human? It is a genetically distinct member of the human species, homo sapien. It is not a dog. It is not a monkey. It is not a cactus. It is and can only be human. And I would pose the same question from point #6 again: If it’s not human, what is it?


I will bet $100 with anyone on this board that no state will ban interracial marriage in the next 5 years following this decision (assuming it holds). Chris can be our middle man and hold the money!


I’ve given my definition of when human life begins (conception), and backed it up with a basic outline of my reasoning (see point #6 above). I am prepared to defend that definition scientifically, philosophically, and morally.

Instead of just flatly disagreeing with my definition without any arguments or evidence or alternative definition, please give us your definition of when human life begins, along with some basic reasoning to back it up.

My point is not that anything WILL happen to any of the cases I've listed within the next 5 years... it's that the method of protecting those freedoms that I've listed will be fundamentally overruled as precedent. So as soon as we get a court and a state that so behooves.... they can do whatever they want and begin the legal process to throw these rulings concerning fundamental rights to privacy to the states where they don't belong. It's not just these past rulings either... it's any future protection that might need to be justified using the same method.

Alito and his ilk will be overturning 60+ years of precedent for many multiple cases (both ones I've listed and ones that I haven't) and establishing a new (and flawed) precedent concerning a federal assurance of the right to privacy along with due process protection of liberty from the states.

Alito's seminal defense is that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has previously been broadly applied, now (arbitrarily) has to concur with a case that was decided in 1997, roughly 30-50 years after some of the liberties protected by due process from the actions of the states were ruled upon (including abortion). He says that we must concur with Glicksburg and that abortion would have to be "deeply rooted in American history and tradition".... then he immiately chooses to ignore the role abortion played throughout American history (and dating back to British Common Law) simply to say that because the freedom was not outlined in LAW long prior to Roe that it wasn't part of American history or tradition.

That is a fundamentally flawed argument. He's conflating the definition of his requirement.... (History + Tradition) with LEGAL history and tradition which was not part of his fundamental requirement.... and even in doing so he omits the reasons how and why abortions were being restricted prior to Roe. He ignores that abortions were not prohibited in English Common Law until the woman could feel the baby moving. He ignores the fact that when the states he references having banned abortion outright were doing so, that they were doing so largely because of the medieval and dangerous methods which abortions were being conducted by during the late 1800's.

I think it's improper for Justices to act as amateur historians... and poor ones at that, and to justify a ruling based upon their cherry picked historical reports is even more improper. Not to mention the fact that it will end up fundamentally harming millions of Americans in terms of their liberty which will be infringed upon after having been codified for more than 60 years.

 

[astonmartin708]

All any of the justices need to do now to justify getting rid of a right that was previously deemed worthy of protection under the 14th is come up with an alternative and flawed legal history that ignores actual history, ethics, and multi-decade precedent and several have now shown that they have no problems doing so or agreeing to someone else's.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

My point is not that anything WILL happen to any of the cases I've listed within the next 5 years... it's that the method of protecting those freedoms that I've listed will be fundamentally overruled as precedent. So as soon as we get a court and a state that so behooves.... they can do whatever they want and begin the legal process to throw these rulings concerning fundamental rights to privacy to the states where they don't belong. It's not just these past rulings either... it's any future protection that might need to be justified using the same method.

Alito and his ilk will be overturning 60+ years of precedent for many multiple cases (both ones I've listed and ones that I haven't) and establishing a new (and flawed) precedent concerning a federal assurance of the right to privacy along with due process protection of liberty from the states.

Alito's seminal defense is that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has previously been broadly applied, now (arbitrarily) has to concur with a case that was decided in 1997, roughly 30-50 years after some of the liberties protected by due process from the actions of the states were ruled upon (including abortion). He says that we must concur with Glicksburg and that abortion would have to be "deeply rooted in American history and tradition".... then he immiately chooses to ignore the role abortion played throughout American history (and dating back to British Common Law) simply to say that because the freedom was not outlined in LAW long prior to Roe that it wasn't part of American history or tradition.

That is a fundamentally flawed argument. He's conflating the definition of his requirement.... (History + Tradition) with LEGAL history and tradition which was not part of his fundamental requirement.... and even in doing so he omits the reasons how and why abortions were being restricted prior to Roe. He ignores that abortions were not prohibited in English Common Law until the woman could feel the baby moving. He ignores the fact that when the states he references having banned abortion outright were doing so, that they were doing so largely because of the medieval and dangerous methods which abortions were being conducted by during the late 1800's.

I think it's improper for Justices to act as amateur historians... and poor ones at that, and to justify a ruling based upon their cherry picked historical reports is even more improper. Not to mention the fact that it will end up fundamentally harming millions of Americans in terms of their liberty which will be infringed upon after having been codified for more than 60 years.

Please point out to me if I’m wrong, but although that is a lengthy post, I don’t believe you directly responded to a single point I made or question that I asked.

And “liberty” does not mean that a person can do whatever they want. As the old saying goes, “Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.” (paraphrasing). In this case, the “nose” is the pre-born human life in the womb.

In truth, every law restricts our “liberty” (defined in that way). The problem with Roe was that it said, we don’t need laws about abortion because abortion is a fundamental right found in the Constitution. That is incorrect, which is why it is about to be overturned (hopefully). Then the question will devolve back to the States and the voters in each State. Then voters can democratically determine how they want to handle the fraught issues around abortion and make their own laws, instead of just having it declared a federal “right” by nine unelected justices in 1973.

 

[TU_BLA]

4. Saying abortion is just a “personal decision” ignores the countervailing interests of the right to life for the human life in the womb.

5. Anyone who seriously thinks Republicans want to ban inter-racial marriage has been drinking the BlueAnon kool-aid. That is nowhere close to reality. Clarence Thomas’ wife is white. Mitch McConnell’s wife is Taiwanese. Do Democrats actually believe that line? Or is it just fear-mongering to try to stir up people who don’t know better?

6. Human life begins at conception. If you are arguing that the mother has an overriding interest that allows her to unilaterally end that life (rape, incest, life-threatening health issues for the mom), you need to make the case based on those terms. Pro-abortion arguments that attempt to dehumanize the life inside the womb are scientifically and morally flawed. (Is it alive? If not, what is it? - Is it human? If not, what is

The flaw in your argument is you're trying to apply Christian values to the law and whether or not it fits your personal moral feeling. This is flawed because the Constitution strictly forbids in the 1A the government from imposing a state sponsored religion on the citizens of the country. And these laws are not derived for the good of society...they come from the evangelical political machine which has held this country hostage for 25 years...all in the name of Christ. It's sort of a bloodless crusade to eliminate opposing viewpoints or beliefs. And you think they won't come after interracial marriage and gay marriage? Ha...it's already happening. Just because a 75 year old feckle politician and a sexual abuser of a SCOTUS justice are part of inter racial and inter ethnic relationships doesn't mean the evangelical machine is going to stop their attacks on those things.

Our democracy is about to go down in flames all so the evangelicals can have power. We've started restricting individual liberties, marching to ban books and content...and the attacks on race and women and Jews...the GOP has eroded itself into the modern Nazi party...and it's not even hyperbole or exaggeration to call it that.

 

[noble cane]

The other victim here is SCOTUS itself. Who will view it as a non-political and principled?

If the courts were non-political or principled, then the political parties wouldnt make selection of judges a key point of their platforms and the left wouldnt be screaming "pack the court" and "impeach xxxxxxx"..

The courts have become a convenient way for both parties to duck their legislative duties and constitutional amendment needs. Now they use "judicial interpretation" as a means of advancing agendas without facing an angry mob demanding accountability for their votes on controversial issues.

 

[noble cane]

Moloch Warns Of Looming Child Sacrifice Supply Chain Issues

CANAAN—In a somber press release outside the burning gates of torment and suffering, the fire god Moloch warned of looming supply chain issues regarding child sacrifices.

babylonbee.com

 

[noble cane]

New drinking game... everytime a poster calls the GOP "Nazis" we have to take a shot of Jaegermeister...

 

[lawpoke87]

It’s very difficult for me to take the left seriously when the scream about free speech and restricted individual liberties after what we’ve seen across college campuses and on our social media platforms. This is the same party who randomly chose a certain segment of our population and required private individuals to get a vaccine (which at the time of implementation didn’t prevent the virus) as a condition for employment at the private employer. But it’s fine to restrict individual liberties and speech as long as it’s the speech with which we disagree.

As far as abortion, I will say it again. This is a issue which needs to be legislated on the federal level. Always has been. The legal reasoning is Roe has always been tenuous. Legislate a reasonable abortion law. No 6 week restrictions and no at birth or close restrictions. Keep the viable language and codified it into federal law.

 

[astonmartin708]

Please point out to me if I’m wrong, but although that is a lengthy post, I don’t believe you directly responded to a single point I made or question that I asked.

And “liberty” does not mean that a person can do whatever they want. As the old saying goes, “Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.” (paraphrasing). In this case, the “nose” is the pre-born human life in the womb.

In truth, every law restricts our “liberty” (defined in that way). The problem with Roe was that it said, we don’t need laws about abortion because abortion is a fundamental right found in the Constitution. That is incorrect, which is why it is about to be overturned (hopefully). Then the question will devolve back to the States and the voters in each State. Then voters can democratically determine how they want to handle the fraught issues around abortion and make their own laws, instead of just having it declared a federal “right” by nine unelected justices in 1973.

So we pass the decisions of contraceptives, gay marriage, freedom to be gay, interracial marriage, etc… back to the states because those “rights” were all determined in the exact same way.

Arguing for states rights in this modern era sounds great! /s

I can’t think of an example where letting the states decide on issues of morality and ethics has ever gone wrong and led to subjugation of entire peoples and a war that cost thousands upon thousands of American lives. And led to racial and cultural divisions for a century after those decisions were made. /s

Im going to start calling you Buchanan. Of course you probably couldn’t tell me why that’s of significance and clearly your boy Alito couldn’t either.

 

[astonmartin708]

Who’s screaming about speech in this context Poke?

Equating vaccines and response to plague with reproductive rights is a bit untenable. One is in response to an illness that’s killing millions of people. People who exist in society and have jobs and friends and family who have existing emotional connections to them and importance to the continuation of society.

What if protecting reproductive rights means ending the filibuster to do so?

 

[lawpoke87]

Who’s screaming about speech in this context Poke?

Equating vaccines and response to plague with reproductive rights is a bit untenable. One is in response to an illness that’s killing millions of people. People who exist in society and have jobs and friends and family who have existing emotional connections to them and importance to the continuation of society.

What if protecting reproductive rights means ending the filibuster to do so?

Banning books because of content and banning speech due to content are very similar. One restriction is aimed at children being exposed to certain speech while the other is aimed at preventing adults from hearing the same. As I free speech guy I’m generally against both except in extreme cases involving children. Parents seeking to restrict what their children are exposed to is also quite different than the state and Fed’s censoring speech to the public on the whole. I do try to be consistent in my opinions regardless of the politics of the day

We are talking the arbitrary requirement of getting a vaccination in order for certain private individuals to keep their job while the person in the shop next do has no such restrictions. A vaccine at the time which didn’t prevent the virus. The arbitrary attack on one’s civil liberties was egregious especially considering the fact the vaccine didn’t work in preventing either the virus or it’s spread. I don’t want to hear about civil liberties when you only support those you agree with.

Also remember for this topic I’ve always supported reasonable abortion rights. I’ve also always preferred those rights be codified into federal law.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

The flaw in your argument is you're trying to apply Christian values to the law and whether or not it fits your personal moral feeling.

Genetic fallacy. Also, please point to anywhere that I used a religious argument. Plus, returning the question of abortion legislation to the voters in each state is not “imposing a state sponsored religion on the citizens of the country.”

the GOP has eroded itself into the modern Nazi party...and it's not even hyperbole or exaggeration to call it that.

It is most definitely both hyperbole and exaggeration. For all the left complains about “conspiracy theories” from the far-right, I see more blatant conspiracy theories adopted by the mainstream left than the mainstream right. (ex: see this thread)

Here’s my take on some of that…because the cultural milieu that we all swim in is decidedly left-leaning (media, social media, academia, woke sports/corporate virtue-signaling), the right understands the point of view of the left far better than the left understands the point of view of the right.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

Also remember for this topic I’ve always supported reasonable abortion rights. I’ve also always preferred those rights be codified into federal law.

FWIW, I also agree that this would be a perfectly fine and Constitutional outcome of all this. That’s why overturning Roe is necessary. Abortion laws should have always been a question to be decided through legislation by the people’s elected representatives, not by judicial fiat.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I disagree that it should be determined by state legislatures. It should be decided by the US Congress. One woman should not be subjected to different laws than those of another because she lives in a different state. Also, this vying of states to affect a woman/state's action's is not right either. Traveling across state lines and being penalized in the form of fines and/or prison terms, and etc., for performing/having an abortion is ridiculous. There should be one law.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

If they reverse Roe I don't think legislation will be brought up by the Congress for quite some time.(if ever) They will just leave it to the states to argue it out, and to put through whatever legislation they so desire. Then it will be up to SCOTUS to determine how much one state can penalize another state/woman. It will be a mess for many years to come. It will just foment 'civil war' talk even more so. That's what I love the most, civil war talk.

 

[lawpoke87]

If they reverse Roe I don't think legislation will be brought up by the Congress for quite some time.(if ever) They will just leave it to the states to argue it out, and to put through whatever legislation they so desire. Then it will be up to SCOTUS to determine how much one state can penalize another state/woman. It will be a mess for many years to come. It will just foment 'civil war' talk even more so. That's what I love the most, civil war talk.

I hope you’re wrong. The left will have incentive to pass federal legislation to protect the ability to receive an abortion. The right will have incentive to pass federal legislation to place term restrictions (no abortions after viability, etc…). While I hope you’re wrong I admit the odds of both sides coming together for reasonable legislation is remote. It is what it is.

 

[URedskin54]

New drinking game... everytime a poster calls the GOP "Nazis" we have to take a shot of Jaegermeister...

Bit odd for America’s Orthodox Jews to consistently vote for the nazi party

 

[astonmartin708]

I disagree that it should be determined by state legislatures. It should be decided by the US Congress. One woman should not be subjected to different laws than those of another because she lives in a different state. Also, this vying of states to affect a woman/state's action's is not right either. Traveling across state lines and being penalized in the form of fines and/or prison terms, and etc., for performing/having an abortion is ridiculous. There should be one law.

The real problem is that Congress won’t take it up because of the Senate’s 60 vote threshold.

 

[astonmartin708]

Banning books because of content and banning speech due to content are very similar. One restriction is aimed at children being exposed to certain speech while the other is aimed at preventing adults from hearing the same. As I free speech guy I’m generally against both except in extreme cases involving children. Parents seeking to restrict what their children are exposed to is also quite different than the state and Fed’s censoring speech to the public on the whole. I do try to be consistent in my opinions regardless of the politics of the day

We are talking the arbitrary requirement of getting a vaccination in order for certain private individuals to keep their job while the person in the shop next do has no such restrictions. A vaccine at the time which didn’t prevent the virus. The arbitrary attack on one’s civil liberties was egregious especially considering the fact the vaccine didn’t work in preventing either the virus or it’s spread. I don’t want to hear about civil liberties when you only support those you agree with.

Also remember for this topic I’ve always supported reasonable abortion rights. I’ve also always preferred those rights be codified into federal law.

Freedom from vaccination is not a codified or broadly understood Liberty and has never been considered so. In fact exactly the opposite. The vaccination requirements were as broad based as they could have been to have been considered legally enforceable. Saying the vaccine didn’t work is ignorant.

 

[lawpoke87]

Freedom from vaccination is not a codified or broadly understood Liberty and has never been considered so. In fact exactly the opposite. The vaccination requirements were as broad based as they could have been to have been considered legally enforceable. Saying the vaccine didn’t work is ignorant.

One …. BS
Two…..reread my post.

1). An across the board vaccination requirement based on public safety meets legal requirements much more than an arbitrary mandate for employees working for companies if an arbitrary size. The public safety argument went out the window when no such mandate was made for those receiving federal aid.

2). My words were when the mandate was enacted the vaccine did not prevent the virus nor its spread. Before you say my comment is ignorant take the time to read it and intelligence to understand the same.

Hard to make the “hands off my body” argument when one supported an arbitrary mandate to inject drugs into one’s body if they wanted to keep their job. An injection which was known at the time not to achieve its stated objective.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

The real problem is that Congress won’t take it up because of the Senate’s 60 vote threshold.

I think abortion legislation could get 60 votes in the Senate. I think it would be one of the rare cases where a coalition gets cobbled together with ~30 votes from each side of the isle, instead of how it typically goes where the 50 from one party are trying to find 10 votes from the other.

 

[astonmartin708]

One …. BS
Two…..reread my post.

1). An across the board vaccination requirement based on public safety meets legal requirements much more than an arbitrary mandate for employees working for companies if an arbitrary size. The public safety argument went out the window when no such mandate was made for those receiving federal aid.

2). My words were when the mandate was enacted the vaccine did not prevent the virus nor its spread. Before you say my comment is ignorant take the time to read it and intelligence to understand the same.

Hard to make the “hands off my body” argument when one supported an arbitrary mandate to inject drugs into one’s body if they wanted to keep their job. An injection which was known at the time not to achieve its stated objective.

I never made the hands off my body… Getting rid of Roe after having whined about vaccines is rich though.

Again… the vaccines are much more understandable, and the vaccine achieved its objective it prevented death.

 

[lawpoke87]

I never made the hands off my body… Getting rid of Roe after having whined about vaccines is rich though.

Again… the vaccines are much more understandable, and the vaccine achieved its objective it prevented death.

1). I don’t support getting rid of Roe. Not sure who you are talking about

2). Our conversation was regarding the arbitrary vaccine mandate and it’s timing not the vaccine in general. You’re once again attempting to change my argument. If you’re going to disagree with my statements at least disagree with my statements instead of coming up with your own with which to object. Again…reading comprehension isn’t hard.

I find it disheartening not to mention downright scary that there is a segment of our population which supports the forced vaccination of an arbitrarily selected segment of out population of a drug which fails to achieve the objective for which the mandate was instituted. A fact which was known prior to the mandate taking effect. Maybe we can get a Nazi -Jewish comparison by those who like such things

 

[astonmartin708]

1). I don’t support getting rid of Roe. Not sure who you are talking about

2). Our conversation was regarding the arbitrary vaccine mandate and it’s timing not the vaccine in general. You’re once again attempting to change my argument. If you’re going to disagree with my statements at least disagree with my statements instead of coming up with your own with which to object. Again…reading comprehension isn’t hard.

I find it disheartening not to mention downright scary that there is a segment of our population which supports the forced vaccination of an arbitrarily selected segment of out population of a drug which fails to achieve the objective for which the mandate was instituted. A fact which was known prior to the mandate taking effect. Maybe we can get a Nazi -Jewish comparison by those who like such things

1) Not specifically talking about you, but I heard that argument a lot during covid surrounding the vaccines.

I would have preferred that the vaccination was less arbitrary, but that would have given fewer folks who wanted an out a way to not get vaccinated and I do believe that if they would like to not be vaccinated and be hermits then they should be able to be... but if they want to be productive members of society then I think they should be required to be vaccinated.

Also, no one is forcing people to get abortions.

 

[lawpoke87]

1) Not specifically talking about you, but I heard that argument a lot during covid surrounding the vaccines.

I would have preferred that the vaccination was less arbitrary, but that would have given fewer folks who wanted an out a way to not get vaccinated and I do believe that if they would like to not be vaccinated and be hermits then they should be able to be... but if they want to be productive members of society then I think they should be required to be vaccinated.

Also, no one is forcing people to get abortions.

Why should the government be able to force its citizens to take a vaccine which doesn’t prevent or significantly slow the spread of a virus? Moreover, an arbitrarily selected group of people.

Any government mandate forcing its citizen to inject drugs into their bodies must face strict scrutiny. Especially when the mandate targets a selected group. Given the facts at the time of the mandate it doesn’t come close.

 

[watu05]

Plus Alito’s historical claims are bass ackwards

Scarlet Letters: Getting the History of Abortion and Contraception Right

Despite anti-abortion activists’ rhetoric, abortion and contraception have been legally practiced in America since the Pilgrims’ arrival.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[noble cane]

Bit odd for America’s Orthodox Jews to consistently vote for the nazi party

Well... Putin claims that the Jewish Prez of Ukraine is a Nazi.. so I guess .. Putin and certain others have a lot in common..

Oh.. and drink!

 

[astonmartin708]

Why should the government be able to force its citizens to take a vaccine which doesn’t prevent or significantly slow the spread of a virus? Moreover, an arbitrarily selected group of people.

Any government mandate forcing its citizen to inject drugs into their bodies must face strict scrutiny. Especially when the mandate targets a selected group. Given the facts at the time of the mandate it doesn’t come close.

When the mandate was announced, it would have helped prevent the spread. Then it was delayed in implementation due to public outcry... at which time it stopped being effective against transmission of a new variant; however, it was still effective against severe illness which made it worthwhile to continue broad implementation of considering the degree to which the disease was worse in terms of serious effects and deaths.

You will never convince me that the Covid vaccine wasn't a good candidate and a good use of the government's authority for regulation. The government's only flaw was that it wasn't able to (or chose not to) implement it more broadly and sooner.

Meanwhile dopes that I'm acquainted with were allowed to pedal ivermectin to me and everyone else they knew despite having absolutely no repercussion for putting people in increased jeopardy by pitching it as an alternative to vaccination which it has since been proven definitively not to be. I'm sure those doctors that were fighting so hard for it without a shred of actual provable evidence will lose their licenses... oh they won't you say? Go figure.

 

[lawpoke87]

The fact is when the government made the decision to implement the forced vaccination of millions the vaccination wasn’t effective in either preventing the virus or the spread. Yet the Fed’s continued with their arbitrary vaccination requirement.

The mandate was targeted but not at the segment of the population which the current strain posed the greatest risk….the elderly. If fact, the mandate ignored that segment of the population. Don’t argue “effective against severe illness” and omit the part of the population at risk.

Simply bad policy. A vaccine which didn’t prevent one from contracting the virus targeted at those least at risk…and not one person who implemented this ridiculous policy lost their job.

 

[watu05]

Covid public health measures gave people choices: no one was physically forced to wear a mask or get vaccinated, nor criminalized. Is isolation Coercive? Yes but isolation and quarantines have been the basic public health tool since civilization began.
Taking away a woman’s command of her own body has zero to do with public health nor does it benefit society. Abortion in the US has been accepted within limits since the Puritans and only became a political football when the AMA and it’s male doctors decided to run midwives out of business.
As for right to life, it’s really right to birth, because at that point the right wing takes an immediate exit. Maternity leave, childcare,? Forget it. The states opposing abortions have much higher rates of infant mortality and women dying in child birth.

 

[lawpoke87]

Covid public health measures gave people choices: no one was physically forced to wear a mask or get vaccinated, nor criminalized. Is isolation Coercive? Yes but isolation and quarantines have been the basic public health tool since civilization began.
Taking away a woman’s command of her own body has zero to do with public health nor does benefit society. Abortion in the US has been accepted within limits since the Puritans and only became a political football when the AMA and it’s male doctors decided to run midwives out of business.
As for right to life, it’s really right to birth, because at that point the right wing takes an immediate exit. Maternity leave, childcare,? Forget it. The states opposing abortions have much higher rates of infant gfilw mortality and women dying in child birth.

There are millions of Americans who would disagree that they weren’t forced to take a vaccine. A vaccine at the time which didn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus one was being vaccinated. Sounds nuttier every time I say it. Yet it not only occurred but there are still those who support the action.

 

[astonmartin708]

There are millions of Americans who would disagree that they weren’t forced to take a vaccine. A vaccine at the time which didn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus one was being vaccinated. Sounds nuttier every time I say it. Yet it not only occurred but there are still those who support the action.

And you neglect to acknowledge the fact that the vaccine was safe. Repeatedly proven so, and that it prevented severe illness and death, and that the states with the lowest vaccination rates had the worst outcomes after vaccines were available.

You can disagree with the method of mass vaccination implementation; but you should not be disagreeing that a mass vaccination was necessary to try and help prevent as many deaths as possible.

Continuing the fight is needless and it has little to do with the issue at hand as the right to not be vaccinated is not a right recognized by the court and never has been.

 

[lawpoke87]

And you neglect to acknowledge the fact that the vaccine was safe. Repeatedly proven so, and that it prevented severe illness and death, and that the states with the lowest vaccination rates had the worst outcomes after vaccines were available.

You can disagree with the method of mass vaccination implementation; but you should not be disagreeing that a mass vaccination was necessary to try and help prevent as many deaths as possible.

1). I never said or even insinuated that the vaccine wasn’t safe. Again…quit misrepresenting or misstating my words.

2). We’re not talking about vaccinations in general. We are discussion a vaccine mandate not target at those at risk at a time when the vaccine neither prevented infection or spread. I’m not disagreeing with the method on implementation of the mandate. I’m objecting to a mandate period given the science at the time. There’s not even an argument it was mandated to protect against severe infection as the most at risk segment of our population wasn’t targeted.

Quit changing the argument. We are talking specifically about a mandate which never had anything to do with reducing the spread at the time it was implemented nor was it directed toward those at risk of severe illness. Yet the federal government forced it on millions of Americans.

 

[astonmartin708]

We are not talking about what you want to talk about (and won't be) because all you want to talk about is the fact that the vaccine didn't prevent transmission and didn't fully prevent one from coming up with the disease. You also want to keep arguing about who was mandated to get the vaccine.

What you should really be talking about is the fact that the vaccine could have been fully implemented across the US well before the delta variant became prevalent and it would have prevented transmission and contagion. Instead of completing that task like some other countries did though, we chose to have fights about vaccine efficacy and alternative bogus cures and the rightness or wrongness of mandating vaccines at all (no matter what their transmission prevention rate, success rate, etc... were) and we chose to argue about the semantics of what a vaccine actually meant.

There was only one millstone around the neck of the American people which caused countless people to die who shouldn't have, and it wasn't anyone pushing the vaccine.

 

[lawpoke87]

We are not talking about what you want to talk about (and won't be) because all you want to talk about is the fact that the vaccine didn't prevent transmission and didn't fully prevent one from coming up with the disease. You also want to keep arguing about who was mandated to get the vaccine.

What you should really be talking about is the fact that the vaccine could have been fully implemented across the US well before the delta variant became prevalent and it would have prevented transmission and contagion. Instead of completing that task like some other countries did though, we chose to have fights about vaccine efficacy and alternative bogus cures and the rightness or wrongness of mandating vaccines at all (no matter what their transmission prevention rate, success rate, etc... were) and we chose to argue about the semantics of what a vaccine actually meant.

There was only one millstone around the neck of the American people which caused countless people to die who shouldn't have, and it wasn't anyone pushing the vaccine.

No….again, I am discussing the mandate and have been from my first comment regarding the vaccine. Only the mandate. If you want to start another thread on the vaccine in general have at it. However, attempting to change the subject of this discussion will not work. If you care to discuss the mandate then please continue and stick to that topic. If you want to talk about the vaccination and overall Covid response then start a thread on the same. They are two entirely different subjects and discussions