I mean... Not really... There was no constitutional basis for the judgement in Roe. If there was a basis, then the government would have a lot less power over people. If such a thing as "a right to medical privacy existed" that could prevent a certain procedure from being banned, then the FDA wouldn't be allowed to exist. Arguably, medical licensure shouldn't be allowed. Drug laws probably wouldn't be allowed.
What they tried to do was create an alleged constitutional right that began and ended at exactly one issue. In the past 2 years, that came to a head, because everyone saw the emperor had no clothes: There was a constitutional "right to medical privacy" but you better carry your papers because the government can mandate that you have to prove which medical procedures you've had done.
Now... Imagine if the case actually did establish a universal constitutional right, and one that protected against stuff like vaxx mandates. Well, in that case it isn't so easy to overturn. They couldn't have that. They want to micromanage your life.
What they tried to do was create an alleged constitutional right that began and ended at exactly one issue. In the past 2 years, that came to a head, because everyone saw the emperor had no clothes: There was a constitutional "right to medical privacy" but you better carry your papers because the government can mandate that you have to prove which medical procedures you've had done.
Now... Imagine if the case actually did establish a universal constitutional right, and one that protected against stuff like vaxx mandates. Well, in that case it isn't so easy to overturn. They couldn't have that. They want to micromanage your life.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 1