And wasn't that addressed in Stickman's ruling? There's a difference between "something that we can allow in an emergency" and "something that has been going on

And wasn't that addressed in Stickman's ruling? There's a difference between "something that we can allow in an emergency" and "something that has been going on for 6 months and legally continues forever", like the situation in PA. Further, if there are medical and scientific uncertainties... Erring on the side of constitutional rights seems a LOT less potentially exploitable to me. If you think that something is so critical that you need to permanently remove rights to combat it... You should be able to back that up with incontrovertible evidence.