5 ms·

Banning health care providers from abortion would be unconstitutional. It would be the same as a president banning health care providers from serving muslims.

by adrr 5y ago

Banning health care providers from abortion would be unconstitutional. It would be the same as a president banning health care providers from serving muslims. Women have a constitutional right to get an abortion. People don't have a constitutional right to not vaccinate. Government can and has jailed and/or fined people for not getting a vaccine. These SCOTUS approved mandates helped rid America of smallpox.

willcipriano 5y ago
Ehh constructional right is a bit strong. The supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment[0], has somewhere hidden within it a right to privacy. This right to privacy appearently applies exclusively to abortion, as warrentless wiretapping of every US citizen has been determined not to be a constitutional violation. I find it funny that they can find a right to privacy in the 14th, but give the thumbs up to civil asset forfeiture that directly contradicts the text and is a obvious violation. They seem to make things up as they go along depending on what is politically expedient. [0]https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
- bbatha 5y ago
  The right to privacy is in the 4th amendment, the 14th amendment is used to "incorporate" constitutional rights to the states. Prior to the 14th amendment the rights in the constitution only prevent abridgement of rights by the federal government but states were free to take them away.
Chris2048 5y ago
Then just ban men from having them as well. > Women have a constitutional right to get an abortion. Do they? Where is that written? EDIT: the vague "life, liberty, or property" clause as interpreted by Roe vs Wade. This is such a blank-cheque it may as well not be in the constitution as in hands all power to the interpretation of the courts.
- adrr 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
- adrr 5y ago
  " the vague "life, liberty, or property" clause as interpreted by Roe vs Wade. This is such a blank-cheque it may as well not be in the constitution as in hands all power to the interpretation of the courts." If you read federalist papers or any of the writings of founders on the constitution. The constitution is a living document that is decided by the courts. It is really hard to have a fruitful debate without people having even basic knowledge on this subject.
  - refurb 5y ago
    No, it’s not a living document open to the whims of interpretation or flavor of the month. That’s how you end up with Russia taking over Odessa due to “national security” reasons. If it’s a living document it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    I didn't say the courts couldn't interpret the constitution, but "living document" doesn't need to imply vague - RvW carved out a limited clarification without supplying a general rule of what is and isn't covered. The courts shouldn't have the power to totally skewer the constitution, ad-hoc. > having even basic knowledge on this subject That's your opinion. People debate in echo chambers all the time, if that's what you'd prefer.
cies 5y ago
> Banning health care providers from abortion would be unconstitutional. Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say? All medical procedures should be voluntary, or we go back to the times of lobotomy and forced sterilizations of minorities (and that's not as many decades back as you may think). > Government can and has jailed and/or fined people for not getting a vaccine. This means being unvaxed is a something only the rich can afford. Pay fines, and have a good lawyer.
- driverdan 5y ago
  > Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say? They are not forced. They can choose to find another job if they don't want it.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    So silly. "Comply with us or you lose your job" is only semantics away from "forced". Especially galling since: a) Many frontline workers have superior natural immunity anyway. b) We're in a pandemic and this nuclear option ensures we have fewer healthcare workers, not more ("fewer workers to make the curve more impactful!") c) Not a year ago these were our heros and saviours, and now they're villains for failing to comply. LOL
  - tastyfreeze 5y ago
    Coercion is force. Being told to vaccinate or get fired is not a choice it is coercion.
    - cmh89 5y ago
      Is being told to wear clothes or get fired coercion? Do you find that acceptable?
      - tastyfreeze 5y ago
        Being told to wear clothes or get fired does not require that I get an injection that can cause harm to me. These two things are not equal.

by adrr 5y ago

willcipriano 5y ago

Ehh constructional right is a bit strong. The supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment[0], has somewhere hidden within it a right to privacy. This right to privacy appearently applies exclusively to abortion, as warrentless wiretapping of every US citizen has been determined not to be a constitutional violation. I find it funny that they can find a right to privacy in the 14th, but give the thumbs up to civil asset forfeiture that directly contradicts the text and is a obvious violation. They seem to make things up as they go along depending on what is politically expedient. [0]https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

bbatha 5y ago
The right to privacy is in the 4th amendment, the 14th amendment is used to "incorporate" constitutional rights to the states. Prior to the 14th amendment the rights in the constitution only prevent abridgement of rights by the federal government but states were free to take them away.

Chris2048 5y ago

Then just ban men from having them as well. > Women have a constitutional right to get an abortion. Do they? Where is that written? EDIT: the vague "life, liberty, or property" clause as interpreted by Roe vs Wade. This is such a blank-cheque it may as well not be in the constitution as in hands all power to the interpretation of the courts.

adrr 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
adrr 5y ago
" the vague "life, liberty, or property" clause as interpreted by Roe vs Wade. This is such a blank-cheque it may as well not be in the constitution as in hands all power to the interpretation of the courts." If you read federalist papers or any of the writings of founders on the constitution. The constitution is a living document that is decided by the courts. It is really hard to have a fruitful debate without people having even basic knowledge on this subject.
- refurb 5y ago
  No, it’s not a living document open to the whims of interpretation or flavor of the month. That’s how you end up with Russia taking over Odessa due to “national security” reasons. If it’s a living document it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  I didn't say the courts couldn't interpret the constitution, but "living document" doesn't need to imply vague - RvW carved out a limited clarification without supplying a general rule of what is and isn't covered. The courts shouldn't have the power to totally skewer the constitution, ad-hoc. > having even basic knowledge on this subject That's your opinion. People debate in echo chambers all the time, if that's what you'd prefer.

cies 5y ago

> Banning health care providers from abortion would be unconstitutional. Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say? All medical procedures should be voluntary, or we go back to the times of lobotomy and forced sterilizations of minorities (and that's not as many decades back as you may think). > Government can and has jailed and/or fined people for not getting a vaccine. This means being unvaxed is a something only the rich can afford. Pay fines, and have a good lawyer.

driverdan 5y ago
> Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say? They are not forced. They can choose to find another job if they don't want it.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  So silly. "Comply with us or you lose your job" is only semantics away from "forced". Especially galling since: a) Many frontline workers have superior natural immunity anyway. b) We're in a pandemic and this nuclear option ensures we have fewer healthcare workers, not more ("fewer workers to make the curve more impactful!") c) Not a year ago these were our heros and saviours, and now they're villains for failing to comply. LOL
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  Coercion is force. Being told to vaccinate or get fired is not a choice it is coercion.
  - cmh89 5y ago
    Is being told to wear clothes or get fired coercion? Do you find that acceptable?
    - tastyfreeze 5y ago
      Being told to wear clothes or get fired does not require that I get an injection that can cause harm to me. These two things are not equal.