JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:14 pm
I think I already told you several times in this thread and others that the right to marry IMV is an equal protection issue. I have supported that right for many, many years. So if you want an explanation to the contrary you really need to ask someone who doesn’t believe in that right.
So if you believe we have an absolute privacy right to make our own health care decisions, explain your support for vaccine mandates. People were terminated by public and private employers. Explain to me why the government can decide what I wear? I’ll start believing in your commitment to individual rights, freedom and privacy when you start to apply those principles even when it’s inconvenient for you to do so.
Bottomline, I did not support overturning Roe. Although I agreed with RGB it was poorly decided, I am where I believe a majority of people are. Most folks don’t want unlimited abortion but they also don’t want to force a woman to carry a child to term. So they would support the right to abortion prior to viability and in the case of rape, incest or life of mother.
Again, the Supreme Court has said we have a right to privacy from the government. You don’t agree with that, I get it.
And vaccine mandates? From the government, or from an employer? I am not aware where the government said everyone in America was required to get a vaccine.
Now, as I understand it, (and I haven’t been in the military, but Number Six can say whether I’m right or not), but when you join the military and go overseas, you are required to take many different vaccines. You don’t have a choice. Yet you guys want to turn that upside down, and let soldiers decide whether to take vaccines or not. I’d say that’s putting their lives in danger, but then, the right has always seen the military as cannon fodder anyway.
As to employers making mandates, some things are required for the job. You aren’t forced to take the vaccine, but you may not be able to perform your job without it, so you have the right to quit. Now, under a collective bargaining agreement, that has to be negotiated - and I know it was going to be an issue without our union’s contracts, though I retired before vaccines were available and it became an issue. Sans a CBA, it’s up to the employer, and you have a choice, stay employed or quit. But, it’s an employer-employee thing, NOT a Constitutional thing. Again, a Constitutional right to privacy, just like free speech, is only about the government, not an employee. That’s why companies can fire you for speech you make as an employee. Good reason to have a union contract, where you DO have freedom to speak out on many issues, including safety.
And I take it you’re against public nakedness laws? Is that what you mean that the government makes you wear clothes? Are you saying you shouldn’t be required by the government to wear a uniform, if you’re employed by the government? No police or firefighter uniforms?
So please, explain yourself.
Concerning the Right to Privacy, consider this -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy :
In Griswold, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras of other explicitly stated constitutional protections. The Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. The Court found that when one takes the penumbras together, the Constitution creates a “zone of privacy.” The right to privacy established in Griswold was then narrowly used to find a right to privacy for married couples, regarding the right to purchase contraceptives.
Justice Harlan's Concurrence in Griswold
Additionally, it is important to note Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Griswold, which found a right to privacy derived from the Fourteenth Amendment. In his concurrence, he relies upon the rationale in his dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman (1961). In that opinion, he wrote, "I consider that this Connecticut legislation, as construed to apply to these appellants, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe that a statute making it a criminal offense for married couples to use contraceptives is an intolerable and unjustifiable invasion of privacy in the conduct of the most intimate concerns of an individual's personal life."
In privacy cases post-Griswold, the Supreme Court typically has chosen to rely upon Justice Harlan's concurrence rather than Justice Douglas's majority opinion. Eisenstadt v Baird (1971), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) are two of the most prolific cases in which the Court extended the right to privacy. In each of these cases, the Court relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment, not penumbras.
Extending the Right to Privacy
In Eisenstadt, the Supreme Court decided to extend the right to purchase contraceptives to unmarried couples. More importantly, however, the Court found that "the constitutionally protected right of privacy inheres in the individual, not the marital couple."
In Lawrence, the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the right to privacy to "persons of the same sex [who choose to] engage in . . . sexual conduct." Relying upon the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process, the Court held: "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."
More at the link. I’m relying on Supreme Court case decisions. What are you relying on?