8 ms·

> Banning health care providers from abortion would be unconstitutional. Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say?

by 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.
      - cmh89 5y ago
        I was just establishing that you don't have a philosophical problem with an Authority using coercion to achieve a goal. Vaccines are safe and effective so I wont get into what conspiracy theories you believe about the COVID-19 vaccine. Most importantly, vaccines have been mandated by the government in different settings for years. I'm sure if you went to college at a public school, you had to certain vaccines. I know I did.
        tastyfreeze 5y ago
        In general I will rebel against any authority that claims to know what is better for me than I do. Nobody is my master. That is what our Constitution protects. My individual right to do whatever the hell I want to as long as it doesn't inhibit other people from doing the same. That doesn't mean I would not comply just for the sake of it. If something is requested of me I will weigh the risks and benefits for myself and my family and make a decision that is best for me. Despite what the media and elected/appointed officials are telling you the SARS-CoV2 vaccine is not 100% safe[1] or effective[2]. The authority to mandate vaccines resides with states not the federal government. The SCOTUS has upheld this authority in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The federal government has absolutely zero authority to mandate vaccination in any capacity. Yes, I did get vaccinations that were mandated by my state to attend public school. All of them were for diseases that are much more destructive and deadly than SARS-CoV2. In my case the vaccines required by my state were diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad... [2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
        handrous 5y ago
  - kelnos 5y ago
    Yes, and coercion is a tool that governments use all the time in order to keep selfish people from trampling over the safety and well-being off their neighbors. Vaccination perfectly fits that bill.
    - tastyfreeze 5y ago
      The SARS-CoV2 vaccine does not provide any meaningful reduction in the spread of the virus. At best it provides a reduction in severity of symptoms for an individual infection. So, your argument that forced injection is justified is null based on vaccine effect alone. Current attempts at coercing employees to vaccinate also do not take into account naturally acquired immunity that is stronger than any vaccine provides. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
- everyoneloves84 5y ago
  So, if my boss says: "have sex with me or lose your job", is that freedom of choice or blackmail?
adrr 5y ago
Greater good of society out weighs people's individual rights. These are basic constitutional tenets. Why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater even though you have the right to free speech. Why the SCOTUS has ruled vaccine mandates are constitutional.
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  Society is a cultural framework and does not in any way supercede individual rights. There is no greater good. The SCOTUS has ruled that states have the authority to mandate vaccination not the federal government. The federal government is extremely limitited in its authority by the Constitution.
- odessacubbage 5y ago
  you can indeed yell fire in a crowded theater.
- coredog64 5y ago
  Schenk was overturned because it was a bad decision. In general, “fire in a crowded theater” is my heuristic for “this person doesn’t know what they’re talking about”. This is the top Google result for “fire in a crowded theater”: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
  - adrr 5y ago
    Use the more modern version it and yell “I have a bomb”.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      You got the premise wrong, not the phrasing. With firecodes what they are today, a bomb is a more comparable danger to what a fire was 100 yrs ago, anyway.
- claytongulick 5y ago
Isthatablackgsd 5y ago
> Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say? They are not forced to take the medicine. They are given an choice to take the vaccine or find another job. If they refused to take the vaccine, that is their choice, period. They cannot claimed they are being forced because they are given an choice in the first place. They are given a free will with their decision. Thousands of Thousands people screeching for being forced when they are given a choice. Society don’t have to conform to those people who want to endanger their people and their livelihood.
- everyoneloves84 5y ago
  > They are given an choice to take the vaccine or find another job. Interesting line of argument. So, if my boss says: "have sex with me or lose your job", is that freedom of choice or blackmail?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    That's only disallowed because of the sex angle. If your boss tells you "come to this work sponsored luncheon for a person you hate or be fired", that's not blackmail and is perfectly allowed. Don't pollute comparisons with situations that have other considerations
- refurb 5y ago
  This is an incredibly weak argument and the courts have already ruled similar issues. The government can’t violate your right to free speech. They also can’t “ask” a private company to censor you as it effectively the same thing. Telling someone “its your choice but if you don’t do it you’ll lose your livelihood” is not a choice at all.
  - cmh89 5y ago
    Choices have consequences. I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job and the consequence of that choice is that my job would fire me. The ability of the government to establish vaccination requirements is long established. It's only becoming a hot topic now because anti-science folks have been programmed to fear a safe and effective vaccine.
kelnos 5y ago
You're aware that we've had vaccine mandates for decades, right? Were you also upset about requiring kids get (for example) MMR vaccines before allowing them to attend public school? If so, then congratulations: some diseases we'd thought we'd eradicated have been coming back because of anti-vax nutjobs. You are not an island. You live in a society, a community of people that requires individuals to give up some personal liberties for the good of the whole. Those who don't like that should go move to an isolated island where their harm to others can be limited.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

adrr 5y ago
Greater good is what it makes it possible to have individual rights. Imagine if you had an absolute right to free speech. You could write or speak anything without legal recourse. Trademark law and copyright law wouldn’t work. Fraud wouldn’t be prosecutable. Apply that to other rights like the right to bear arms. If government couldn’t set standards and people could procure any weapon, how does society function? How does air travel even exist with people owning anti aircraft missiles. That’s why our founders made our constitution a living document with courts interpreting the constitution and balancing individual rights with our collective rights.
- claytongulick 5y ago
  I see the "living document" argument made a lot, and I don't think it means what some people think it means. The founders were purposefully vague in several areas of the constitution because they absolutely did want circumstances to determine interpretation, however they were not vague at all about delegated and reserved powers. These things are not "living" in a sense of judicial review. By "living" document, it was intended that the constitution could be modified by an amendment process. There was never a provision for judicial review. In fact, then entire concept of judicial review arose from Marbury vs Madison [1] where the court claimed this power. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution, and one of the things that makes it unique in history, is to limit the powers of the government. The founders believed that individual rights were innate (granted by God), not granted by government and certainly not granted by the federal government. All powers other than those specifically Delegated to the federal government are reserved for the States - the 10th Amendment makes this clear. It is not the role of the federal government to decide on "greater good" mandates, those powers are very specifically reserved for the states, who are constrained on what they may do by the Constitution and its amendments. We, as a country, have allowed the federal government to overstep this in many areas. The DEA, for example, only exists because of a very bad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which arose from a bad Supreme Court decision (Wikard vs Filburn)[2] about whether or not you were allowed to grow your own wheat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

refurb 5y ago
It's clearly not an established process since Biden's mandates is being struck down.
- cmh89 5y ago
  The court really has nothing to do with whether or not something is well-established. The judge who blocked the mandate is an ideological, inexperience trump appointee. I'm talking about 'well-established' in that it's been happening for 200+ years. The conservative right-wing theocratic extremists that trump appointed will destroy our judicial norms for the next 50 years but that doesn't make them right.
exodust 5y ago
> I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job The difference is you flipped the switch and decided to turn up to work without clothes. You decided to radically change your behavior and actions in the workplace. This will obviously have consequences due to your unsightly naked body offending co-workers. When someone doesn't flip any switch, but continues to work exactly as they did before, they have not done anything you can label a "choice with harsh consequences". Unvaccinated people are not suddenly shedding and dangerous, in the way a naked person is shedding pubic hairs everywhere.
- cmh89 5y ago
  The difference is totally irrelevant. >Unvaccinated people are not suddenly shedding and dangerous, in the way a naked person is shedding pubic hairs everywhere. Unvaccinated people are inherently dangerous. The change is that we now have the ability for them to become vaccinated people who aren't nearly as dangerous to their clients. In June 2020, we had no choice but to have unvaccinated health care workers. Today, we do.
  - exodust 5y ago
    > Unvaccinated people are inherently dangerous. They are not dangerous. A person who has access to sharp knives but is currently not holding a knife, is no more dangerous than someone who does not have access to knives. But even that analogy doesn't fit, since vaccinated people can certainly still get sick and transmit the virus. Besides, I am not restricting my position in this debate to health care workers. I am talking about anyone with a job, who is now required to get vaccinated. That's what happened where I live (Australia). Everyone in my state from barristers, to builders, office workers, truck drivers... literally every professional who isn't working from home, is required to get the vaccine or lose their job. Many are pissed off with the expanding scope of mandates. I can understand the requirement for health workers to be vaccinated. But even then, they should have the option to be tested regularly instead. This is what happens... incremental laws expand and eliminate choice. Suddenly you live in a world where you must get jabbed every 6 months, and repeatedly prove your vaccine status to everyone every day. Tagged, tracked and validated for walking around doing normal things is not a world we should be encouraging, even in pandemic times. If we must disagree on that point, then fine, we disagree.
    - cmh89 5y ago
      I think there's really a collision between your conspiracy theory view of the world where getting inoculated is equivalent to being 'tagged, tracked and validated" Vaccinated people can get sick and transmit the virus, true, but it's much less likely that they will. People with STIs can also transmit the virus, so we wear condoms to make the risk of transmission substantially less. If your sexual partner is unwilling to wear a condom or unwilling to have sex with you if you wear one, you can just choose to not have sex with them and the risk of transmission goes to nothing. That choice doesn't exist with work. If my co-worker chooses to remain a massive public health risk, my chances of catching COVID-19 go up quite a bit. I can't choose to just not be around you and the rest of anti-vaxxers. Not to mention there are people who have legitimate medical reasons who are unable to get vaccinated who are put at substantially higher risk by being forced to be around conspiracy theory anti-vaxxers.