Barrett gives strength to mandate vaccination, the argument for physical autonomy

Supreme Court Justice Amy Connie Barrett on Wednesday nodded at the argument that abortion laws could be a “violation of bodily autonomy” before saying such issues exist in “other contexts such as vaccines.”

The judge, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump and tends to be conservative in her decision-making, made the remark during oral arguments in Dobbs vs Women’s Health Jackson Issue. The case, which centers on a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, is the biggest challenge before Raw vs. Wade Decades ago – a 1973 decision declared abortion a constitutional right, although it is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the US Constitution.

Barrett was asking Senior Director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Julie Rickelman, about the effects that safe harbor laws could have on abortion law, specifically asking whether current law gives an equal burden to both fatherhood and pregnancy. Safe harbor laws are designed to prevent newborns from being abandoned and to allow parents to leave newborns at any safe harbor facility recognized by state law. The child then becomes one of the state guards. Exact parameters vary from state to state, although all 50 states have safe harbor laws.

Barrett wondered [emphasis added]:

Mrs. Rickelman, I have a question about safe harbor laws. The petition notes that in all 50 states, you can terminate parental rights by giving up a child after an abortion. I think the shortest period might be 48 hours if I remember the data correctly. So it seems to me, from this perspective, both Ro And Casey Emphasizing the Burdens of Parenting As much as you and many of your friends focus on the ways in which forced parenting and forced motherhood impede women’s access to the workplace and equal opportunity, they also focus on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that stem from pregnancy.

Why don’t safe harbor laws care about this problem? It seems to me that it focuses the load more narrowly. There is undoubtedly a violation of bodily autonomy, which we encounter in other contexts such as vaccinations. However, it doesn’t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenting is part of the same burden. And so it seems to me that the choice of focus would be, say, between being able to have an abortion at 23 weeks or a situation that would require a woman to go 15 or 16 weeks more and eventually ending parental rights. Why don’t you address safe harbor laws and why do they matter?

Rikelman did not respond to a comparison of vaccine mandates but argued that safe harbor laws are not relevant because “pregnancy itself is unique” from parenting in that it “imposes unique physical demands and risks on women…”

Barrett’s occasional mention of vaccines in relation to bodily autonomy may be the culmination of her perspective on vaccine mandates – a perspective that could have huge implications as vaccine mandates continue to be invalidated in lower courts across the country.

There has been speculation that the Biden administration would eventually appeal to the Supreme Court after several judges blocked one or another of the federal coronavirus vaccination mandates. Tuesday judge export A nationwide preliminary injunction against Biden’s authorization of health care workers soon after another judge left Stop authorization in ten states.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) too suspended Implementation of a federal vaccine mandate affecting nearly 80 million workers in the United States after the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a request to halt vaccination and COVID-19 testing for the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS).

the case Dobbs vs Women’s Health Jackson, 19-1392 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Write a Comment