Why reversing Row v. Wade is a bad trade for the Pro-Life crowd.

[Jason Warfield]

Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.

Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.

You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history. Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.

This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us. Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.

And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.

So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.

Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.

You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history. Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.

This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us. Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.

And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.

So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?

Not to mention the weakening of the 14th amendment and all that entails.

 

[aociswundumho]

This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us.

It already does, thanks to the progressive regulatory state. Doctors have been under political control for a long time.

Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.

Progressives were doing that decades ago:.

During the Progressive Era (ca. 1890 to 1920), the United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[125] Thomas C. Leonard, professor at Princeton University, describes American eugenics and sterilization as ultimately rooted in economic arguments and further as a central element of Progressivism alongside wage controls, restricted immigration, and the introduction of pension programs.

Compulsory sterilization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and

Progressives saw sterilization as having natural advantages over traditional methods of helping the poor, such as charity. Sterilization was "scientific" -- its rationale could be found in the writings of Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, who mused that superior people, like superior crops and farm animals, were the product of good breeding. The term "gene" had not yet been coined -- among the surprises in Bruinius' book is that the science and the word "genetics" were born of the pseudoscience eugenics, and not vice versa -- but any well-read person could understand that if you wanted to rid the world of inferior people, you ought to stop them from passing on their characteristics to future generations. Whereas charity only prolonged and deepened the problem of poverty by allowing the "unfit" among us to survive and procreate, sterilization presented what you might call a permanent, final solution.

Progressive genocide

Less than 100 years ago, America's finest minds were convinced the nation was threatened by sexually insatiable female morons. A new history of the eugenics movement sheds light on a bizarre chapter in U.S. history.

www.salon.com

So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?

For the political left the point is to produce another taxpayer who will spend a big portion of his life working for the state.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.

Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.

You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history. Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.

This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us. Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.

And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.

So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?

The rationale underpinning Roe had absolutely nothing to do with what employers, banks, etc. can do with your medical information. As far as governments are concerned, it's easy enough to legislate in those areas without implicating abortion.

 

[Lursa]

Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.

Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.

You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history. Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.

This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us. Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.

And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.

So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?

It also tosses due process into the toilet. Where's the probable cause to investigate any woman's health, period? Much less her reproductive status?

 

[Lursa]

The rationale underpinning Roe had absolutely nothing to do with what employers, banks, etc. can do with your medical information. As far as governments are concerned, it's easy enough to legislate in those areas without implicating abortion.

Why? How? Is your medical privacy a right or not? Can you explain, you seem very definite.

Maybe you can expand on 'the rationale underpinning Roe?'

It's not absolute of course, no right is...but currently there needs to be specific probable cause to access such records.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Why? How? Is your medical privacy a right or not? Can you explain, you seem very definite.

Maybe you can expand on 'the rationale underpinning Roe?'

It's not absolute of course, no right is...but currently there needs to be specific probable cause to access such records.

The constitution generally doesn't limit what private companies can do to you. It restricts the government.

 

[reflechissez]

The rationale underpinning Roe had absolutely nothing to do with what employers, banks, etc. can do with your medical information. As far as governments are concerned, it's easy enough to legislate in those areas without implicating abortion.

How?

 

[Lursa]

The constitution generally doesn't limit what private companies can do to you. It restricts the government.

If you refuse to hand over your medical records to your employer, they cannot compel you to do so legally. They can fire you but they cant force you to do so. That's because the federal govt, via the Const, protects your right to that privacy (not private consequences).

The Const and it's enforcement 'protect' people. And what is the 'underpinning rationale behind RvW?'

 

[Noodlegawd]

How?

Pass laws limiting what the government can do with your private information.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If you refuse to hand over your medical records to your employer, they cannot compel you to do so legally. They can fire you but they cant force you to do so. That's because the federal govt, via the Const, protects your right to that privacy (not private consequences).

No it doesn't. The reason your employer can't force you do do hand over your medical records is because they have no authority to force you to hand them over. Full stop. It has nothing to do with the Constitution.

The Const and it's enforcement 'protect' people. And what is the 'underpinning rationale behind RvW?'

The Constitution "protects people" from the government, not from other people.

 

[CLAX1911]

Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.

Doctor patient confidentiality isn't tied to RvW

Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.

No. Over turning it doesn't mean abortion becomes illegal and it has nothing to do with doctor patient confidentiality.

People don't seem to really care about privacy I don't here anybody even mentioning the Patriot act.

You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history.

How does it do that?

Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.

So the first amendment will automatically be repealed? How did it exist up until 1972?

This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us.

How? We're the government dictating medical procedures up until 1972?

Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.

So they were doing that up until 1972?

And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.

So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?

I wasn't aware the constitution and all the rights acts were ratified in 1972. RvW was the founding of the country... Who knew?

 

[Lursa]

No it doesn't. The reason your employer can't force you do do hand over your medical records is because they have no authority to force you to hand them over. Full stop. It has nothing to do with the Constitution.

THey have a level of authority, if you want to keep your job. THey cant force you do to so, because that information is 'special', it' protected under the umbrella of privacy. The Const provides that protection.

The Constitution "protects people" from the government, not from other people.

Yeah I know, that's why I wrote that it couldnt protect them from private consequences (like those from the employer).

 

[Noodlegawd]

THey have a level of authority, if you want to keep your job. THey cant force you do to so, because that information is 'special', it' protected under the umbrella of privacy. The Const provides that protection.

No it doesn't. Not against an employer.

Yeah I know, that's why I wrote that it couldnt protect them from private consequences (like those from the employer).

Yet you just said "the Const provides that protection" in the context of talking about what an employer can or cannot force you to do.

Which is it?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

There now is no longer a right to privacy. That was an underpinning of Roe. They are tossing Roe, therefore the idea that you have a constitutional right to privacy is gone as well. The government can and will now access your medical records at will, and they will provide that information to anyone they want.

And don't think this is the end. This will embolden the right to challenge other laws they find distasteful, such as the legality of contraception, same sex marriage, sexual harassment, voting rights, medical marijuana, etc.

Yep, America had a good run. We're done.

 

[Gordy327]

There now is no longer a right to privacy. That was an underpinning of Roe. They are tossing Roe, therefore the idea that you have a constitutional right to privacy is gone as well. The government can and will now access your medical records at will, and they will provide that information to anyone they want.

And don't think this is the end. This will embolden the right to challenge other laws they find distasteful, such as the legality of contraception, same sex marriage, sexual harassment, voting rights, medical marijuana, etc.

Yep, America had a good run. We're done.

I worry you might be right. But then, we've been on a decline for years.

 

[Lursa]

No it doesn't. Not against an employer.



Yet you just said "the Const provides that protection" in the context of talking about what an employer can or cannot force you to do.

Which is it?

Third time: they cannot force you to turn over medical records. There can however be private/personal consequences, like...they can fire you.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Third time: they cannot force you to turn over medical records. There can however be private/personal consequences, like...they can fire you.

"Third time" you dodged the point, indeed.

 

[uptower]

Let's hope it fires up apathetic Dem voters in the mid-terms.

They might see the Biden admin dragging its heels and the Dems being too passive but the alternative is letting the monsters out of their cages, they should see the sense in getting off their asses to vote.

 

[Lursa]

"Third time" you dodged the point, indeed.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[X Factor]

I’m pro life and delighted by the overturn of Roe.

 

[X Factor]

Basically, RvW is 40 percent about abortion itself and 60 percent about medical privacy.

Overturning the ruling basically means you are trading making abortion illegal for losing the freedoms you get from medical privacy.

You will have given the government, employers, banks, etc the ability to make decisions on your life based on your medical history. Things like loans, a church letting you join them, ability to get hired or promoted or get a raise…and laws.

This enables the government to start to dictate medical procedures to us. Depending upon whom is in charge it could be lawfully enforced vaccines or jail time, or enforced sterilizations if you have a certain genetic disease.

And there is the specter that this will r inf back a form of eugenics and the need for racial purity. It’s an extreme posit I grant you…but the possibility would exist.

So, what’s the point having a child born if they are not allowed to live in freedom?

Huh, where were all the pro choicers advocating for “medical privacy” and “choice” during the vaccine mandates? Choicers just want abortions. They don’t care about “privacy” anyway.

 

[Lursa]

Huh, where were all the pro choicers advocating for “medical privacy” and “choice” during the vaccine mandates? Choicers just want abortions. They don’t care about “privacy” anyway.

Vaccination was for the greater good of society and the economy. Less grieving people, no more lockdowns, more jobs available again, opening up the economy, etc.

There are no negative effects of abortion on society...so what justifies violating anyone's rights to deny it to women?

If you disagree, please list some negative effects of abortion on society?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I’m pro life and delighted by the overturn of Roe.

No, you're not pro life. You're all about controlling women. So I can see why you're thrilled with this decision. You'll also celebrate when they overturn Griswald as well.