Tag Archives: Bodily autonomy

Progressive Dusts Off ‘My Body, My Choice’ Sign She Put In Storage At Beginning Of The Pandemic

From The Babylon Bee:

PORTLAND, OR—Local progressive Juniper Clouts has once again become outraged this week, this time causing her to go searching for her old signs that express her anger about the current thing. Luckily, she found her old “My Body, My Choice” sign she had tucked away at the beginning of the pandemic.

“Ah good as new,” said Juniper, dusting off the old sign. “I missed not being able to hold you up after those backward, idiotic anti-vaxxers started trying to use you too.”

“Bodily autonomy only applies to us women trying to abort another body—I mean a clump of cells. It clearly doesn’t apply to the government telling you to inject a foreign, experimental substance into your own body,” continued Juniper. “Why is that so hard for people to understand?”

According to sources, Juniper Clouts was then spotted at a local pro-abortion protest shouting things like “MY BABY’S BODY, MY CHOICE”, and “Keep the government off my body, unless they want to vaxx me again, then it’s ok.”

At publishing time, Juniper realized she was actually protesting at an anti-mandate rally. She immediately fell to her knees and tore her beloved sign in half while shouting “NOOOOOOO!”

https://babylonbee.com/news/hello-again-old-friend-progressive-dusts-off-my-body-my-choice-sign-she-put-in-storage-at-beginning-of-the-pandemic

Is it Time for Intellectuals to Talk about God? By Naomi Wolf

God is generally an embarrassment in intellectual circles. That may change in an increasingly evil age. From Naomi Wolf at naomiwolf.substack.com:

It’s a New Dark Age. Evil abounds. Is a postmodern embarrassment about discussing spiritual matters, keeping us stupid and putting us in danger?

I recently spoke at a gathering for medical freedom advocates in a little community center in the Hudson River Valley. I cherish this group of activists: they had steadfastly continued to gather throughout the depths of the “lockdown,” that evil time in history — an evil time not yet behind us — and they kept on gathering in human spaces, undaunted. And by joining their relaxed pot-luck dinners around unidentifiable but delicious salads and chewy homemade breads, I was able to continue to remember what it meant to be part of a sane human community.

Children played — as normal — frolicking around, and speaking and laughing and breathing freely; not suffocating in masks like little zombies, or warned by terrified adults to keep from touching other human children. Dogs were petted. Neighbors spoke to one another at normal ranges, without fear or phobias. Bands played much-loved folk songs or cool little indie rock numbers they had written themselves, and no one, graceful or awkward, feared dancing. People sat on the house’s steps shoulder to shoulder, in human warmth, and chatted over glasses of wine or homemade cider. No one asked anyone personal medical questions.

(While I believe that all decisions about how you live your life vis a vis an infectious disease are intensely personal, and I would never recommend to others to assume any specific level of risk or to pursue any specific strategy of risk reduction; I think it’s worth noting, by the way, that to my knowledge, they had gone through the last two years without having lost a soul to COVID.)

Continue reading→

The Left’s Contempt for Bodily Autonomy During the Pandemic Is a Gift to the Right, by Jonathan Cook

A few years ago it was, “My body, my choice!” Now it’s mandatory vaccinations—”Shut up and take the jab!” The abandonment of principle is example number 10,294 of leftist hypocrisy. From Jonathan Cook at unz.com:

When did parts of the left get so contemptuous of the principle of “bodily autonomy”? Answer: Just about the time they started fetishising vaccines as the only route out of the current pandemic.

Only two years ago most people understood “bodily autonomy” to be a fundamental, unquestionable human right. Now it is being treated as some kind of perverse libertarian luxury, as proof that the “deplorables” have been watching too much Tucker Carlson or that they have come to idealise the worst excesses of neoliberalism’s emphasis on the rights of the individual over the social good.

This is dangerous nonsense, as should be obvious if we step back and imagine what our world might look like had the principle of “bodily autonomy” not been established through centuries of struggle, just as were the right to vote and the right to health care.

Because without the principle of bodily autonomy, we might still be dragging virgins up high staircases so that they could be sacrificed to placate the sun gods. Without the principle of bodily autonomy, we might still be treating black people like animals – chattel to be used and exploited so that a white landowning class could grow rich from their enforced labours. Without the principle of bodily autonomy, we might still have doctors experimenting on those who are “inferior” – Jews, Romanies, Communists, gays – so that “superior races” could benefit from the “research”. Without the principle of bodily autonomy, we might still have the right of men to rape their wives as one of the unwritten marital vows.

Continue reading→

A Brief History of the Law of Personal Privacy and Bodily Integrity, by Andrew P. Napolitano

The law of mandatory vaccinations is not settled by a 1905 Supreme Court ruling. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

As more governors issue so-called mandates requiring municipal and state employers, as well as private employers and public accommodations, to require their employees and patrons to be vaccinated against COVID-19, they are being challenged by arguments based on personal privacy and bodily integrity.

The former argues that personal medical decisions are protected by the right to privacy, which is a natural right that supersedes governmental needs. The latter argues that since we each own our bodies, we can decide what goes into them. Both the personal privacy and the bodily integrity arguments recognize that the government can only trump fundamental rights if it can prove fault at a jury trial.

Thus, a case where an infected and contagious person is intentionally infecting healthy folks can and should result in an arrest and prosecution for aggravated assault at which the state would need to prove its case. If it did, the convicted defendant would be incarcerated and isolated for the duration of her sentence. But that does not animate the government today.

Today, the government — local, state and federal — is attempting to compel healthy people to be vaccinated against their wills. All three levels of government are attempting to do this by command, not by legislation.

The favorite U.S. Supreme Court case that the pro-mandate folks cite is the 116-year-old Jacobson v. Massachusetts. There, in the era before the court recognized personal privacy or bodily integrity as constitutionally protected, it upheld a Massachusetts statute requiring inoculation for smallpox.

Continue reading→