Roe v Wade & Vaccines – The Court Must Choose if Right to Privacy Still Exists

Resist the System35
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Roe v Wade was based on Griswald v Connecticut which established the right to privacy. That was a law that married people would not use birth control.

By Martin Armstrong for Armstrong Economics
© 2021 Armstrong Economics – All Rights Reserved

The Democrats are no longer promoting what is best for this country. Many are starting to open their eyes. Somehow, we have to get back to the middle. The Democrats are trying to figure out how to get a wealth tax into their $3.5 trillion spending spree. They may get a tax on trading and will probably implement that on everything with perhaps stocks being an exception. Even that seems debatable. This is clearly pushing Schwab-Gates agenda as we head into 2022.

Roe v Wade was based on an earlier decision Griswald v Connecticut which established the right to privacy. That was a law that married people would not use birth control. How do you enforce such a law? Does a police officer have to inspect you before having sex? It was held that such a law could not be enforced and there was the right to privacy. Therefore, Roe v Wade was rooted in that principle aside from if you agree or disagree with the subject of abortion. It is indeed inconsistent as a matter of law that you can mandate vaccines but uphold Roe v Wade and the right to privacy.

Honestly, this is becoming so messed up it is hard to keep track of all the twists and turns. Logic has completely vanished today. I would argue in court that if vaccines can be mandated, then there can be no right to privacy. I am not sure even how a judge is supposed to arrive at a logical opinion. I would certainly raise Roe v Wade to challenge these vaccines and let the Democrats choose.

By Martin Armstrong for Armstrong Economics
© 2021 Armstrong Economics – All Rights Reserved

Related posts