Sunday, June 26, 2022

'My Body, My Choice' Only Applies To Roe v. Wade And Not Vaccine Mandates, 'Experts' Say – OutKick - by Ian Miller

The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade has dominated the news cycle since the opinion was released Friday.

Reactions from the pro-abortion side have been ranged from deliberately misleading to woefully inaccurate to offensive, with one comedian labeling half the country as “terrorists.”

Activist athletes like Megan Rapinoe have also contributed a remarkable amount of hypocrisy, claiming the ruling represents violence against “women’s bodies,” while refusing to define what a woman’s body actually is:

But yet another type of hypocrisy has emerged from supposed public health “experts” and politicians.

Best exemplified by U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, it’s yet another indicator of how the response to Roe v. Wade is about nothing more than maintaining allegiance to the correct political ideology, intellectual consistency be damned.

In 2021, President Joe Biden attempted to mandate COVID vaccination for millions of workers throughout the United States by appealing to OSHA authority. Any employee who worked for a company with more than 100 employees would have had their freedom of choice removed by being forced to take a vaccine that does nothing to protect the safety of others.

The mandate was ultimately deemed to be illegal, but the attempt was celebrated by public health “experts” and many politicians as the correct decision, regardless of its impact on bodily autonomy.

Back in November of 2021, Murthy defended the government mandating a private health decision by saying: “It’s a necessary step to accelerate our pathway out of the pandemic.” He also referred to it as entirely “appropriate:”

“The president and the administration wouldn’t have put these requirements in place if they didn’t think they were appropriate and necessary,” Murthy told host Martha Raddatz on ABC’s “This Week.” “And the administration is certainly prepared to defend them.”

Murthy believes that when it comes to COVID vaccination, the “essential principle of maintaining an individual’s autonomy and control over their health decisions” is null and void.

Unsurprisingly, he had the exact opposite reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision:

It’s amazing how flexible the “essential principle” of “individual autonomy and control over their health decisions” apparently is.

When it suits Murthy’s political needs, he’s a staunch defender of individual choice. When he wants to mandate control over other’s bodies and personal health decisions, choice is a meaningless, easily dismissed concept.

Justin Trudeau exemplifies the same remarkable lack of shame.

Less than a year ago, Trudeau mandated vaccines for anyone attempting to travel by plane or train across Canada, as well as for all “federally-regulated” workers.

This decision, of course, removed bodily autonomy and choice for millions who need to travel or didn’t want to lose their government jobs.

Undeterred by the abject hypocrisy, Trudeau on Friday declared that “no government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.”

It’s hard to imagine a more blatant example of political posturing and virtue signaling.

Trudeau, who is a man, politician, and a representative of the government, told many women in Canada exactly what they had to do with their body.

Get vaccinated or lose your job and stay home.

He had no problem removing the “right to choose” when it suited his needs. Only now when he has an opportunity to signal his ideological virtue is he a champion of individual liberty.

It’s nothing new for politicians and public health authorities to be hypocritical. But their ability to blatantly disregard the principles of bodily autonomy and personal control over health decisions just a few months ago means it’s impossible to take them seriously now.

It’s almost assuredly too much to ask “experts” and politicians to be intellectually consistent, but it’s yet another example of why trust in institutions and those that run them continues to deteriorate.