Loading...

Justice Amy Coney Barrett connected the right to abortion and the right against mandatory vaccines. - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title Justice Amy Coney Barrett connected the right to abortion and the right against mandatory vaccines., we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : Justice Amy Coney Barrett connected the right to abortion and the right against mandatory vaccines.
link : Justice Amy Coney Barrett connected the right to abortion and the right against mandatory vaccines.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett connected the right to abortion and the right against mandatory vaccines.

This is interesting — challenging — because most people who believe in at least one of those rights believe in only one. Or so I assume. Is there entitlement to bodily autonomy or not?

Justice Barrett only made a passing reference linking these 2 purported rights. A ban on abortion after 15 weeks is "is, without question, an infringement on bodily autonomy," she said, then added that we have that "in other contexts, like vaccines." Clearly she meant mandatory vaccines.

Here's the whole context, from the transcript of yesterday's oral argument. Barrett — questioning Julie Rikelman, the lawyer for the respondent, the Jackson Women's Health Organization — brings up how easy it is these days to give up a newborn baby for adoption. Legally easy. So maybe Court shouldn't put much if any weight on the burdens of forced parenting. If the analysis is limited to the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth, Barrett says, "it focuses the burden much more narrowly. There is, without question, an infringement on bodily autonomy, you know, which we have in other contexts, like vaccines."

Rikelman does not accept the invitation to focus the burden much more narrowly. Barrett's next question comes in a form that I like, restating very clearly what you think your interlocutor just said and asking if that's accurate. But I don't think Barrett's paraphrase is accurate:

But, as I hear this answer then, are you saying that the right as you conceive of it is grounded primarily in the bearing of the child, in the carrying of a pregnancy, and not so much looking forward into the consequences on professional opportunities and work life and economic burdens?

Barrett heard wrong, Rikelman quickly responds:

No, Your Honor, I believe it's both, and -- and that is exactly how Casey talked about it. It talked about the two strands of cases that supported the right. One was the strand of cases supporting bodily integrity.... and the second was the strand of cases supporting decisional autonomy and specifically decisions related to childbearing, marriage, and procreation....

So, there are 2 lines of cases, and Rikelman, asked to abandon one, refuses. But let's examine Barrett's idea and how it relates to mandatory vaccines. If you could exclude one line of cases because of the ease of giving up your baby for adoption, then what would be left is bodily autonomy. Perhaps the idea is that if the bodily autonomy ground for the abortion right is rejected, it will be difficult to identify a right against forced vaccination. To state that in reverse, if the abortion right survives and is based on the bodily autonomy ground, it will fortify the foundation for a right against forced vaccination.

Loading...

This is interesting — challenging — because most people who believe in at least one of those rights believe in only one. Or so I assume. Is there entitlement to bodily autonomy or not?

Justice Barrett only made a passing reference linking these 2 purported rights. A ban on abortion after 15 weeks is "is, without question, an infringement on bodily autonomy," she said, then added that we have that "in other contexts, like vaccines." Clearly she meant mandatory vaccines.

Here's the whole context, from the transcript of yesterday's oral argument. Barrett — questioning Julie Rikelman, the lawyer for the respondent, the Jackson Women's Health Organization — brings up how easy it is these days to give up a newborn baby for adoption. Legally easy. So maybe Court shouldn't put much if any weight on the burdens of forced parenting. If the analysis is limited to the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth, Barrett says, "it focuses the burden much more narrowly. There is, without question, an infringement on bodily autonomy, you know, which we have in other contexts, like vaccines."

Rikelman does not accept the invitation to focus the burden much more narrowly. Barrett's next question comes in a form that I like, restating very clearly what you think your interlocutor just said and asking if that's accurate. But I don't think Barrett's paraphrase is accurate:

But, as I hear this answer then, are you saying that the right as you conceive of it is grounded primarily in the bearing of the child, in the carrying of a pregnancy, and not so much looking forward into the consequences on professional opportunities and work life and economic burdens?

Barrett heard wrong, Rikelman quickly responds:

No, Your Honor, I believe it's both, and -- and that is exactly how Casey talked about it. It talked about the two strands of cases that supported the right. One was the strand of cases supporting bodily integrity.... and the second was the strand of cases supporting decisional autonomy and specifically decisions related to childbearing, marriage, and procreation....

So, there are 2 lines of cases, and Rikelman, asked to abandon one, refuses. But let's examine Barrett's idea and how it relates to mandatory vaccines. If you could exclude one line of cases because of the ease of giving up your baby for adoption, then what would be left is bodily autonomy. Perhaps the idea is that if the bodily autonomy ground for the abortion right is rejected, it will be difficult to identify a right against forced vaccination. To state that in reverse, if the abortion right survives and is based on the bodily autonomy ground, it will fortify the foundation for a right against forced vaccination.

Thus articles Justice Amy Coney Barrett connected the right to abortion and the right against mandatory vaccines.

that is all articles Justice Amy Coney Barrett connected the right to abortion and the right against mandatory vaccines. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article Justice Amy Coney Barrett connected the right to abortion and the right against mandatory vaccines. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/12/justice-amy-coney-barrett-connected.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: