Page 39 of 39

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:17 pm
by Dooom35796821595
Galloism wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
That seems more like a state vs federal issue, rather then a mandatory vaccination opening the door for a ban on abortion. After all isn’t Roe v Wade the federal case legalising abortion nationwide? On that same basis, federal law making vaccination mandatory would sit along the same lines, making it a federal issue rather then a state issue.


Yes - it was based on the idea that people have a right to choose their own valid medical procedures and that choice can’t be restricted by the state.

Oops.

Also, the lack of border control between states, and the fact the CDC is a federal institution would support the fact that vaccination is a nationwide issue, and not something states can legislate on individually.


Of course - but the underpinning principle of Roe v. Wade is as binding on the fed as it is on the states.


Well since children are normally the ones who need vaccination and they don’t have the right to choose, their parents do, it could be legislated as a child welfare issue, therefore not affecting bodily sovereignty.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:21 pm
by Galloism
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Galloism wrote:
Yes - it was based on the idea that people have a right to choose their own valid medical procedures and that choice can’t be restricted by the state.

Oops.



Of course - but the underpinning principle of Roe v. Wade is as binding on the fed as it is on the states.


Well since children are normally the ones who need vaccination and they don’t have the right to choose, their parents do, it could be legislated as a child welfare issue, therefore not affecting bodily sovereignty.

THAT is a stronger and less problematic position. We already recognize children as having a duty of care that vaccination could fall under.