Where does the government get the authority to regulate prescription drugs? You're the one telling us that they don't have the authority so it seems like you should be the one giving details not me
I'd rather that most of the things we are discussing not be regulated at all. Where in hell does the government derive any power to tell me what substances I can put into my own body? Government's ONLY concern with the regulation of any drug should be to make sure I get the pure drug I am paying for
But then on the flip side of the coin I do believe you are in favor of mandatory vaccinations. So you don't want the government to tell you what you can't take but you want the government to force people to take what they say they'll take. Those two things seem to completely cancel each other out
If you could have a reasonably enforceable type of regulation saying that anyone not vaccinated should be denied treatment for the disease vaccinated against then I would say that people should be able to get vaccinated or not as they choose; but most hospitals wouldn't go along with it.
louisiana law is still on the books and will be enforced if griswald vs ct (the next "right to life" target) is overturned. the law predates the invention of the pill. condoms must be labelled "for the prevention of disease only" our legislature passed, yesterday, a "fetal personhood law" making abortion "murder" from conception.
that may have been intended in 1789, but after appomattox such "states rights" were buried by the 14th amendment "equal protection clause."
Only for highly contagious issues. On the flip side of that coin, the only reason vaccines become nessessary is because we don't have universal health care. So people who refuse to get vaccinated clog up hospitals, and never pay their bills. We end up paying for their stay anyway.
It's sort of binary. If you don't agree to be vaccinated, should your hospital stay be paid for by others insurance? Cause it is in the background when you start spreading filth.
"Rights" being a word, it means what people decide. It could be a "right" that just isn't covered in the Constitution. It might not be a "right" at all, and still be legal.
Why not have an honest conversation? The current conservative position is that the states should create the template for their state for when or how abortion can be regulated. It seem pejoratively dishonest to couch the conversation in a legal theory that cannot be supported. Even RBG outlined why RVW and subsequent opinions didn't fulfill the notion of finding an actual right, whether that be non enumerated notional invention within the 9th amendment or whether it was necessary to craft an equal protection opinion instead. RBG favored the latter because as she said many times, the non enumerated rights wouldn't be sufficient. Those were her writings and opinion. The states have the necessary legal base from which to regulate this medical procedure. To regulate this abuse of life. The notion that somehow the scare tactic of then fabricating the straw man that folks who agree with RBG would somehow also then attack the use of contraceptives, well, it's kind of ludicrous. So why try to invent the narrative? Does it satisfy some desire to inflict more fear in the nation? Does it start the false narrative engine for you? It's hard to say. But it sure seems entirely disingenuous of folks, like you, on the left who are now attempting to ratchet up yet more fear of a non issue for most of the nation.