This is going to be disastrous for the republicans in states that are a close call and people are distracted from the real horror that is the complete collapse of the economy.
I wonder what they will use when people are getting angry about there no longer being any food on the shelves
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.
Roe being overturned wasn't planned as a distraction, it just happened to happen that way.
No, it was planned and permitted.
This is going to be disastrous for the republicans in states that are a close call and people are distracted from the real horror that is the complete collapse of the economy.
I wonder what they will use when people are getting angry about there no longer being any food on the shelves
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.