When the Dobbs decision came down, Sonia Sotomayor was among the dissenters. She co-signed a dissent that said in part :
"“Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions,”
First, let me say that I have been saying for some time now, that this whole argument about abortion being based on 'autonomy" that is the sole realm of women should be challenged. Either ALL of us, male and female have bodily autonomy or none of us have bodily autonomy.
Second, please note that they discuss autonomy and substantial choice in "most personal and consequential of all life decisions."
It would follow that not only do women have the this so called "equal right" but so do men. Not only that, but that people have the right to choose and make decisions that are "personal" and highly "consequential".
I would agree with that statement 100%.
“Today, the Court discards that balance,” the dissent continued. “It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.”So the dissenting justices, including Sotomayor OBJECT to the idea that THE STATE can force a woman to do something to her body that she doesn't consent to 'at the steepest personal and familial costs".
Sounds to me like Sotomayor agrees that the state has no business coercing citizens to do things and threatening "steep personal and familial" costs.
I would agree 100%.
"A State can of course impose criminal penalties on abortion providers, including lengthy prison sentences. But some States will not stop there. Perhaps, in the wake of today’s decision, a state law will criminalize the woman’s conduct too, incarcerating or fining her for daring to seek or obtain an abortion. And as Texas has recently shown, a State can turn neighbor against neighbor, enlisting fellow citizens in the effort to root out anyone who tries to get an abortion, or to assist another in doing so."
Again, these justices are against the state penalizing citizens who make medical decisions the state doesn't agree with.
I agree 100%.
Therefore you would think that when Sotomayor is presented with a case in which the bodily autonomy argument could easily be supported and she could prevent the state from forcing people to make medical decisions under threat of "steep personal and familial cost" she would would take it.
Alas, no.
"Sotomayor denied the emergency application for a writ of injunction, filed on Friday, meaning the court will not reevaluate the city’s worker vaccine rule."
Oh.
So all that about the dangers of the state forcing citizens into medical situations they don't consent to and the whole "autonomy" thing was just....what?
This is why, as of now, I don't want to hear anything about pro-choice. You cannot be pro-vax mandate and then talk about bodily autonomy and how the state needs to have their "hands off your body". If the state can force me to take a shot (that doesn't even prevent the disease it's supposed to prevent), then it can decide whether you can't have an abortion.
