Suppose an anti-abortion president gets elected and he elects someone as head and tells them that health care providers that accept medicare or medicaid cannot provide abortions. Not making it illegal per-se, but just for the providers that accept medicare or medicaid for any of their services.
You okay with this as well?
It seems to me like you just don't think medicare or medicaid should be a thing to begin with. I think it's basic sense that if we're paying for medicare and medicaid we should require the healthcare providers receiving our tax dollars to meet some standard level of care, or else we're just wasting our money. We can argue over what that level of care should be, but I don't think it's all that debatable that requiring things like vaccines could fall into that level of care if not having them is particularly risky for patients.
There's no mechanism to enforce this reasoning. It's whether the agency has the power to do it or not. For instance it could be argued that natural immunity is far superior to vaccines, so excluding healthcare workers with natural immunity from working is not about protecting patients.
> It seems to me like you just don't think medicare or medicaid should be a thing to begin with.
???
I'm not sure what you're getting at, Congress gave the agency the power to set guidelines for requirements for caring for medicaid/medicare patients, that's what they do. If a guideline would not actually impact medicaid/medicare patients, then they can't do it and it would rightfully get struck down in court when it is challenged for not falling within their powers. That's quite literally the same mechanism currently being used to challenge their power to require vaccines.
Your point about natural immunity seems reasonable, it doesn't mean requiring vaccines for those without natural immunity wouldn't still make sense though so I don't think it really fits your point. Claiming that the particular way they went about this requirement is bad is different from saying they can't require a vaccine at all. I think your point makes some sense, but it could still be paired with a vaccine requirement making it effectively the same thing.
> ???
I thought what I said was pretty self explanatory. If Medicare and Medicaid are going to be worth it then we have to have some standard level of care that we're paying for - we shouldn't be paying tons of money just for medicare/medicaid patients to receive bad care. Why should my tax dollars to go a healthcare provider who doesn't want to get the vaccine when that money can go to one who will? The medicare/medicaid patients that we're paying for will get better treatment from those healthcare providers who require vaccination, and if better care is not the goal than what is?
The mechanism would be the judicial system, and in the case of restricting abortion services, the regulation would probably be subject to strict scrutiny.
Lots of things could be argued; some things shouldn't be argued without evidence.
During a pandemic, statements that will be interpreted as suggesting that catching the disease beats vaccination fall squarely in that category.
CMS only controls this for patients covered by Medicaid/Medicare. It can set the tone for the entire industry, but does not solely control the industry. Typically, they create influence by setting/rejecting Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement standards. Since enough patients are covered by CMS, it tends to be easier for hospitals to broadly adopt the policies.
Not comparable. Based on current law, abortion is a Constitutionally-protected right. Based on precedent from the Spanish-flu era, the government has broad public health powers.
All that said, as someone who isn’t a fan of how much power Congress has ceded to the executive through administrative powers (which delegate legislative powers to the executive through rulemaking), I wouldn’t mind seeing those curtailed.
The decision is much more narrow that you've been led to believe.
It specifically addresses state police powers, not federal powers.
It also doesn't mandate vaccination, it allows a small fine to be paid instead.
Also, according to a well known attorney I consulted (who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court) the Jacobson decision has been overturned countless times and is considered an awful ruling, the Healthcare equivalent of Dred Scott.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
Specifically avoided saying that. Stated simply, my point is there is positive precedent to the precursors to vaccine mandates, and reasonable ambiguity to the question per se. There is clear negative precedent for abortion. As such, comparing them is misleading. (Better analogy may be found in gun rights.)
Assuming it is: I think policy measures like that should be subject to medical needs. I think there's a clear medical need to require COVID vaccinations for healthcare workers, but banning abortions doesn't pass that test.
And hell, didn't the Trump administration actually do this, though maybe through different means? Withholding federal funding from providers who offer abortions?
Your example is a covered procedure, some of which is defined by the CMS, but much of it is defined by federal statute that dictates what classes of procedure are covered by medicaid/medicare. To go to your example specifically, federal statute ALREADY limits medicaid abortion coverage to abortions arising from rape, incest, or that put the health of the mother at risk. 16 states go beyond that and cover abortion in more cases, but they pay for that with their own money (which is also allowed statutorily). So in your case, what the new CMS head was declaring is unlawful on its face, as this is something that congress has specifically addressed.
The supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment[0], has somewhere hidden within it a right to privacy. This right to privacy appearently applies exclusively to abortion, as warrentless wiretapping of every US citizen has been determined not to be a constitutional violation.
I find it funny that they can find a right to privacy in the 14th, but give the thumbs up to civil asset forfeiture that directly contradicts the text and is a obvious violation. They seem to make things up as they go along depending on what is politically expedient.
[0]https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say?
All medical procedures should be voluntary, or we go back to the times of lobotomy and forced sterilizations of minorities (and that's not as many decades back as you may think).
> Government can and has jailed and/or fined people for not getting a vaccine.
This means being unvaxed is a something only the rich can afford. Pay fines, and have a good lawyer.
They are not forced to take the medicine. They are given an choice to take the vaccine or find another job. If they refused to take the vaccine, that is their choice, period. They cannot claimed they are being forced because they are given an choice in the first place. They are given a free will with their decision. Thousands of Thousands people screeching for being forced when they are given a choice. Society don’t have to conform to those people who want to endanger their people and their livelihood.
You are not an island. You live in a society, a community of people that requires individuals to give up some personal liberties for the good of the whole. Those who don't like that should go move to an isolated island where their harm to others can be limited.
> Women have a constitutional right to get an abortion.
Do they? Where is that written?
EDIT: the vague "life, liberty, or property" clause as interpreted by Roe vs Wade. This is such a blank-cheque it may as well not be in the constitution as in hands all power to the interpretation of the courts.
If you read federalist papers or any of the writings of founders on the constitution. The constitution is a living document that is decided by the courts. It is really hard to have a fruitful debate without people having even basic knowledge on this subject.
