• antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    8 months ago

    Abortion is important, but constitutional amendments are difficult so let’s make it count: bodily autonomy. This includes abortion but also assisted suicide, personal drug use, tattoos, gender reassignment, and much more.

    • esc27@lemmy.world
      0·
      8 months ago

      I feel like that could backfire. The antivax movement would use it to try and kill off all compulsory vaccinations leading to a resurgence in otherwise rare diseases. ERs would hesitate to perform lifesaving operations without consent over fear of being sued later.

      Then there is the question of who makes bodily autonomy decisions for children and people unable to make decisions for themselves. If parents, you could see an increase in religiously motivated mutilations. If the state…

      • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        0·
        8 months ago

        People already do medically unnecessary genital mutiliaton to babies (circumcision). Parents have autonomy over their children until they reach the age of reason, or they become legally adults. I think pregnancy would have to create legal adulthood.

        ER and Good Samaritan laws already indicate that when unresponsive, consent to save a life is implied. You can do CPR on an unresponsive person without repercussions.

        For the vaccines, people should definitely be free not to do it, but then they are not admitted to public school. They are quarantined when they go to a hospital. They cant travel on airplanes or public transit. Just like you’re free to get face tattoos but some people might not want to look at you. Should we outlaw face tattoos? No, that should be unconstitutional. I don’t have a face tattoo and I don’t think anybody should, but I would fight for their freedom to make their own choice. It doesn’t have to be a good decision, it just has to be their own decision.

        Of course there are details to hash out and decide in the courts, but that is the case with all good rights, even freedom of speech.

        • esc27@lemmy.world
          0·
          8 months ago

          You are more optimistic than I am. I worry a particularly “slanted” Supreme Court might interpret school vaccine requirements, quarantine, etc. as coercive violations of bodily autonomy.

          Maybe if the amendment had a limited public heath exception and some protections for doctors. But the wording would be tricky.

          • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            0·
            8 months ago

            After what China allegedly did during Covid, I think we should think very carefully about the specific conditions of a legalized and forced quarantine.

            • esc27@lemmy.world
              0·
              8 months ago

              Yeah, that’s why any exception would have to be narrow and carefully worded and I’m not even sure it would be possible.

              Both risks are pretty bad. Make the protections too strong and people will abuse the privilege. Too weak and governments will abuse the exceptions.

              Eh, maybe I’m overthinking it. Even the first amendment is understood not to protect certain kinds of speech. Although sometimes I wonder if those exceptions could survive if directly challenged in our modern situation…

      • whereisk@lemmy.world
        0·
        8 months ago

        A few years ago I would have said the courts would impose sanity over these extremes but that no longer applies.