Roe VS Wade officially goes back before the Supreme Court - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15201410
Godstud wrote:Yes, and you still have the right to not get a vaccine. You just give up the privilege of an education. You also have the right not to carry ID, but you might be denied access to a drinking establishment, because of it.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Barring unvaccinated kids from schools is not about body autonomy. Parents can choose whether or not kids get vaccinated and this then affects school choices.

Parents can choose to send their kids to private schools or homeschool.

So this is, at best, an infringement of other rights.


Ugh, so not being able to access public education is not enough of a limitation to you both? Come on.

Godstud wrote:It's not comparable to body autonomy that a pregnant woman is denied because she might choose to get an abortion. It's on a far lower level, and vaccines are a matter of public health. A pregnancy is not. It can't be spread like a disease. It only affects the health of pregnant individual.

Making a vaccine mandatory wouldn't be unconstitutional in the USA, as they make many public health mandates. Quarantines are public health mandates.


Indeed, it is a justified mandate. But PoD claimed bodily autonomy trumps always defending lives in the West, clearly that's not true. It depends on the situation, and for some people protecting fetuses should be one of those situations where this should be the case.

If you think it should not, I can understand so. I don't have, personally, a clear stance on the matter. But I understand why abortion is so despised by some, too. I understand it deals with complex questions about who's a person, and why. And maybe there's no response that can leave everyone or even most people happy, which is actually interesting and disturbing in its own right.
#15201412
@Pants-of-dog It might be an infringement of privilege, but not an infringement of rights. There is not right to education. There is no right to enter a drinking establishment.

Public health trumps minor loss of privilege.

@wat0n I don't care that you think limiting access to public education is enough. I think it should apply to ALL education, or place where someone unvaccinated can spread/catch a communicable disease that has caused 790,000+ deaths in the USA, alone.

Abortion is a necessary evil. Society is not about to support women who are single and with children, in ANY significant way. Until that time, banning abortions is fucking worse than abortion itself.

Vaccines have fuck-all to do with body autonomy. It has to do with selfishness, cowardice and ignorance.
#15201413
Godstud wrote:@wat0n I don't care that you think limiting access to public education is enough. I think it should apply to ALL education, or place where someone unvaccinated can spread/catch a communicable disease that has caused 790,000+ deaths in the USA, alone.

Abortion is a necessary evil. Society is not about to support women who are single and with children, in ANY significant way. Until that time, banning abortions is fucking worse than abortion itself.

Vaccines have fuck-all to do with body autonomy. It has to do with selfishness, cowardice and ignorance.


The 14th Amendment does guarantee equal protection to access public education. If that right is being limited in the case of vaccines, it's because not doing so enters in conflict with other rights such as the right to life or (depending on the State) the right to health.

As for abortion, as I said, I don't have an opinion but can understand those who consider it an infringement to an alleged right to life of a fetus. We don't let parents kill newborns just because they may have trouble supporting them and they simply don't see why should fetuses be treated differently.

And of course vaccines have something to do with bodily autonomy. It's just that their collective benefits justify that infringement on bodily autonomy.
#15201415
What a policy *mess* -- the treatment of the Texas thing shows a lack of governmental *decisiveness* / federalism.



The Texas Heartbeat Act is an act of the Texas Legislature that bans abortion after the detection of an unborn child's heartbeat, which normally occurs after about six weeks of pregnancy. It was introduced as Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) and House Bill 1515 (HB 1515) on March 11, 2021, and was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021. The law took effect on September 1, 2021. It is the first time a state has successfully imposed a six-week abortion ban since Roe v. Wade, and the first abortion restriction to rely on enforcement by private individuals through civil lawsuits, rather than by the government through criminal or civil enforcement. The Act establishes a system in which members of the public can sue anyone who performs or facilitates an illegal abortion for a minimum of $10,000 in statutory damages.[1][2][3]

Eight days after the law went into effect, the United States Justice Department filed a legal action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin, Texas, to challenge the Act. The complaint argues that SB8 is preempted by federal law under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution and interferes with the performance of abortion-related services by federal government agencies and their contractors.[4][5] Federal District Judge Robert L. Pitman issued an order enjoining the State from enforcing the law on October 6, 2021.[6] However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put an administrative stay on Pitman's order two days later, ensuring that the law would remain in effect pending further review on appeal.[7]



In light of this novel feature in the law, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "the statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented. The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime."[1] On September 9, 2021, however, the U.S. Justice Department sued the State of Texas directly in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, seeking a declaration that the law is unconstitutional, and injunctive relief.[40]

A study produced by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin claimed that Senate Bill 8 would prohibit 80% of abortions in Texas and would disproportionately affect black women, lower-income women, and women who live far away from facilities that provide abortion care.[41]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act
#15201429
@colliric
@Unthinking Majority
@wat0n

And that does not contradict my point.

People can choose not to work and therefore can choose not to get vaccinated.

Placing limits on where unvaccinated people can go and/or work is not a violation of body autonomy.

There is no situation other than pregnancy where the right to life trumps body autonomy in western societies.
#15201433
ckaihatsu wrote:
What a policy *mess* -- the treatment of the Texas thing shows a lack of governmental *decisiveness* / federalism.



Take a look at what the U.S. government is *capable* of, to proactively enforce racial integration of the public schools.

Why isn't the same thing being done for the civil rights of *women*, to get an abortion -- !



When integration began on September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive order 10730, which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and ordered them to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students.[3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine



viewtopic.php?p=15200893#p15200893
#15201449
Pants-of-dog wrote:@colliric
@Unthinking Majority
@wat0n

And that does not contradict my point.

People can choose not to work and therefore can choose not to get vaccinated.

Placing limits on where unvaccinated people can go and/or work is not a violation of body autonomy.

There is no situation other than pregnancy where the right to life trumps body autonomy in western societies.


...And people can choose to go to jail, and choose to abort if they want, under this reasoning.

:roll:
#15201455
[EDIT] [Added 'consumerist']


wat0n wrote:
...And people can choose to go to jail, and choose to abort if they want, under this reasoning.

:roll:



Yup.

wat0n is right -- there's an inherent *contradiction* between the idea of 'politics' / policy, and 'decentralization' / individualization, which is basically an *eschewing* of politics, or general societal approach (for whatever).

The default, lowest-common-denominator consumerist approach won't work here because of 'justice' -- justice for women would mean that there are *no* restrictions or legal complications over her body, no matter *what* U.S. state (etc.) she's in, and no state coercion to bring her to term if she doesn't want to bring that potential life into the world.
#15201483
Drlee wrote:
@Pants-of-dog

And for the umteenth time. You are asserting a right to "body autonomy" that does not exist and never has.



POD = Sure it does.

In Canada, for example.


This is a thread about the USA and its Supreme Court. Please stay on topic.

@Drlee said: For example. In the first 13 weeks (give or take) the SCOTUS has said a woman has the right to choose. This has nothing to do with what you call "body autonomy". It has to do with a decision by the authorities as to when viability begins.



POD = I doubt this.


I'm sorry. Did you forget to post your proof? I posted from the decision.


POD = Even though you guys have no explicit right to body autonomy, it does influence US civil rights.


Give us some examples of "body autonomy" being articulate in US law.


Dr Lee = A man does not have the "right" to your so-called "body autonomy". He can be drafted and forced at the threat of imprisonment or even death to sacrifice his body and even his very life to the government. And yes, the US still has a draft.



POD = The last person drafted was in 1973. 48 years ago.

When the last time abortion was limited in the USA was 48 years ago, you can make this comparison. But now it just seems incorrect
.

I don't care what it "seems". The Selective Service Act is still in effect, all young men must register, and they can be called to serve. My point stands as an example of the fact that the US has no concept of "body integrity" codified into law.

Dr Lee = No person has "body autonomy" anyway. For example, one can easily survive on one kidney, and a kidney can bring as much as $200,000.00. Never the less it is against the law to sell one's kidney.



POD = But you can donate it. So, it is not body autonomy that is restricted. It is, instead, the selling and buying of human organs.


Nonsense. If one owned one's body, one could do with it as one pleases. Also. The donating of organs from a live donor is highly restricted by law. One cannot just decide to donate a kidney.



Dr Lee said = No citizen has the right to put any substance into their body that they wish. The states are articulating the right to control how your body is used in that regard also. Voluntary euthanasia is illegal in the US.



POD said = The fact that the US ignores this right consistently and frequently does not mean they do not have the right. They just apply it inconsistently.


The USA is a nation of laws. Please give me an example of where the USA enforces the concept of "body integrity" by law. And oh by the way. The short answer to your reply is "actually yes it does".



Dr Lee = And also note that I pointed out that your constitution makes no mention of it.

So add to that the fact that the SCOTUS allows the forcing of women to bring a child to term and that is the end of it. We already know that you do not agree with them. A great many people don't. That does not alter the fact that there is, at least in the US, no right to "body autonomy".



POD = No, that is incorrect.

If that were the case, vaccines could be made compulsory.


I'm sorry. Did you accidentally post this thinking it was a thread about vaccines.

But since you bring it up.

The current state of the law is this: In Jacobson v. Mass the SCOTUS upheld vaccine mandates. In the decision the court touched on your fallacious argument about "body integrity" when it said:

“The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.”


The current SCOTUS has already dismissed two cases brought before it by employees and students complaining of vaccine mandates claiming health concerns and religious objections.

Will they change their minds and overrule Jacobson? Maybe. But as it stands, vaccine mandates in the US are consistent with US Constitutional law. Some mandates have been put on hold by lower courts. This is not unusual in our system. Sadly we have a very partisan judiciary and "judge shopping" is a very real thing here.

You should know that in my state as in many if not all others, we have mandatory vaccination codified by laws which have been upheld by the SCOTUS. If the Republican Party had not seen political advantage in killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in some absurd notion that the COVID vaccine is any different we would not be having these discussions and a great many dead Americans would be alive.
#15201489
Why adoption isn’t a replacement for abortion rights

https://www.vox.com/2021/12/8/22822854/ ... rt-barrett


Supreme Court appears likely to relax limits on public money for religious education

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... n-n1285559


26 states plan to ban abortion in some form if the Supreme Court OKs Mississippi's ban. Here's who is most at risk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 853843002/
#15201502
Drlee wrote:This is a thread about the USA and its Supreme Court. Please stay on topic.


Sure. Please note that this shows that the USA is lagging behind in civil rights.

I'm sorry. Did you forget to post your proof? I posted from the decision.


As far as I can tell, you posted nothing that supports your negative claim.

Give us some examples of "body autonomy" being articulate in US law.


Again, vaccines are not compulsory.

I don't care what it "seems". The Selective Service Act is still in effect, all young men must register, and they can be called to serve. My point stands as an example of the fact that the US has no concept of "body integrity" codified into law.


Then it also serves as an example of how the government, in practice, respects the body autonomy of men even when not obligated to do so.

Nonsense. If one owned one's body, one could do with it as one pleases. Also. The donating of organs from a live donor is highly restricted by law. One cannot just decide to donate a kidney.


I never claimed you own your body. I pointed out that a restriction on organ sales does not limit your right to distribute your organs.

The USA is a nation of laws. Please give me an example of where the USA enforces the concept of "body integrity" by law. And oh by the way. The short answer to your reply is "actually yes it does".


Again, vaccines are not compulsory.

I'm sorry. Did you accidentally post this thinking it was a thread about vaccines.

But since you bring it up.

The current state of the law is this: In Jacobson v. Mass the SCOTUS upheld vaccine mandates. In the decision the court touched on your fallacious argument about "body integrity" when it said:


Does Massachusetts have a law making vaccines compulsory?

If not, then this is another example of the government respecting the body autonomy of citizens despite a lack of obligation, and further supporting my point that pregnancy is the only exception.

The current SCOTUS has already dismissed two cases brought before it by employees and students complaining of vaccine mandates claiming health concerns and religious objections.


I have already addressed this.

Will they change their minds and overrule Jacobson? Maybe. But as it stands, vaccine mandates in the US are consistent with US Constitutional law. Some mandates have been put on hold by lower courts. This is not unusual in our system. Sadly we have a very partisan judiciary and "judge shopping" is a very real thing here.

You should know that in my state as in many if not all others, we have mandatory vaccination codified by laws which have been upheld by the SCOTUS. If the Republican Party had not seen political advantage in killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in some absurd notion that the COVID vaccine is any different we would not be having these discussions and a great many dead Americans would be alive.


None of this seems relevant.
#15201504
Some key vaccines are already compulsory for children, as I showed earlier.

The Jacobson case was also a challenge to an obligation to vaccinate against smallpox in Massachusetts in the early 20th century, where refusing to vaccinate would expose the anti-vaxxer to fines. Jacobson lost, and had to pay.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 19

So Boris, after being repeatedly caught in Covid […]

Prepare for fascism

Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck (commo[…]

It's quite ridiculous that you feel that the law […]

I'm out here in Colombia and there's all these poo[…]