Did anyone actually read the decision or understand the argument at the core?
The argument is that 'medical privacy' does not exclude legal action for illegal medical procedures or intervention.
A non-abortion example: When pill-mills in Florida were writing huge OxyContin prescriptions for people who wanted to sell or abuse opiates, this was a "medical decision" made between patient and doctor. The ruling says that 'medical privacy' does not protect the doctor from legal actions for overprescribing controlled drugs.
The Roe vs. Wade ruling could be used in the same way that it protected abortions, to protect pill-mills.
The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a valid application of the principle of 'medical privacy'.
Nothing about the ruling can force anyone to take a vaccine or accept medical treatments that they do not want. It simply removes a "shield" from doctors who do things that violate state law.
There is a HUGE difference between a law saying you CANNOT do something and a law saying you MUST do something.
I have seen it as well, on one side people make this claim, on the left people try to compare vaccine refusal to abortion in an attempt to claim it is hypocritical to oppose mandatory vaccines and abortion.
I hope my post can enlighten people to what the ruling actually means.
It really is not.
Did anyone actually read the decision or understand the argument at the core?
The argument is that 'medical privacy' does not exclude legal action for illegal medical procedures or intervention.
A non-abortion example: When pill-mills in Florida were writing huge OxyContin prescriptions for people who wanted to sell or abuse opiates, this was a "medical decision" made between patient and doctor. The ruling says that 'medical privacy' does not protect the doctor from legal actions for overprescribing controlled drugs.
The Roe vs. Wade ruling could be used in the same way that it protected abortions, to protect pill-mills.
The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a valid application of the principle of 'medical privacy'.
Nothing about the ruling can force anyone to take a vaccine or accept medical treatments that they do not want. It simply removes a "shield" from doctors who do things that violate state law.
There is a HUGE difference between a law saying you CANNOT do something and a law saying you MUST do something.
I have seen it as well, on one side people make this claim, on the left people try to compare vaccine refusal to abortion in an attempt to claim it is hypocritical to oppose mandatory vaccines and abortion.
I hope my post can enlighten people to what the ruling actually means.