To be perfectly clear, we at Over-the-Counter unconditionally support medical freedom. Bodily autonomy is an existential right. The corporate state may claim domain over the territory they have conquered, but they do not rule the inner realm of the body, a right enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Like the Constitution, we do not accept any “public health exceptions.” The right is inviolate.
Similarly, we do not accept the argument that a fetus is a human life entitled to legal preservation. This is a developing entity dependent on life support, non-viable outside of womb. To assign human rights to this fetus leads to absurdity. Does a tumor have human rights? It’s alive. It’s human. Just trying to live its best life, right?
Human life, logically and legally, commences at birth. That is when one joins the human race. Feel free to disagree, but it would be better to understand. A developing embryo or fetus is a part of a human body, and lacks both the right and ability to enter into humanity. It inhabits an entirely different universe, and is capable of assuming none of the rights and responsibilities of living on Earth.
That, however, is not what the overturning of Roe is really about. It’s about reckoning. It’s about principles so shallow and hollow that they cannot translate into enduring cultural norms. It’s about hypocrisy at its finest.
Now, this ruling will surely mean a certain amount of distress and needless expense for those women needing this procedure in a state which no longer allows it. The following is not aimed at them.
But for the legions of outraged activists, suddenly lit with the moral irrefutability of medical choice: where were you when it mattered? If access to a chosen procedure is such an immutable human right, why isn’t the right to refuse an unwanted procedure also inviolate?
Where were you?
When we were huddled, scared, that the state wanted to force a life-changing genetic injection on every single individual, many of you cheered it on. We faced unprecedented discrimination, and closed doors, ears, and minds when we made our pleas for choice. We made substantial arguments, which have by now been generally validated. We were vilified and attacked.
All we wanted was the right to remain unmodified. All we wanted was choice.
Our choice didn’t matter, then. Now, we all share the consequences.
Roe v. Wade, as has been observed, was a weak, fragile legal shield, which protected a very specific right for a very specific group. It was not built to last, as we see now. As important as it is to keep the state from interfering with medical choices, this is not what the decision did. It didn’t extend to a general proscription on government interference with individual decisions.
Most of the people marching in rage today condemn libertarians, but the Libertarian political movement supported choice. When the time came for the abortion rights movement to stand against Biden’s draconian Federal mandate, there was not only abject silence, but outright disdain.
“It’s not the same!” they protested. But the precedent was set, the moral high ground ceded. For some reason, these people want convenient access to abortion, but not protection from coerced medical experiments, job discrimination, and outright segregation, such has not been seen since before Roe.
This bizarre disconnect has somehow made these positions coherent. On one hand, it’s an outrage to force women to innovate as they correct their contraceptive failure or failure to pursue contraceptive strategy. On the other, no measure was draconian enough for the many vax fanatics, who somehow thought they had a right to dictate the medical choices of others.
This hypocrisy is startling. Principles, like medical freedom, have to apply universally, or they do not apply at all. As they gleefully skipped down the slippery slope, did none of these lemmings see where their conditional premises lead?
So, now that the mob has been mobilized to remember that medical choice and informed consent used to be standard fare among those who support the current thing, why are any of them surprised that the state is now coming for their medical freedom? Choice? You voluntarily surrendered that on behalf of all of society, and now have the nerve to claim that this right is sacred, after heaping contempt on the rights of those who feared blood clots, heart failure, and neurological disability.
The right to choose should never have been based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to bodily autonomy is clearly enshrined in the Fourth: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
We may now have wait many years before a SCOTUS will hear such an argument, but we’d be much better off if activists would stop carving out obtuse arguments to protect their pet privilege, and come together on this common ground. Having invited the vampire in, no one knows if it will ever leave, but if this Roe reversal upsets you, and you stood for vaccine mandates, just know:
You built this.
but if this Roe reversal upsets you, and you stood for vaccine mandates, just know:
You built this.
Bingo! well stated.