Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
hmm, yes, well, conceptions of liberty--according to European intellectual history-- is rather fraught with exceptions, cautionary tales, and misapprehension of the exclusive "rights" and superseding "interests of" a state, typically expressed as the "consent of the governed" opposed to, ahem, abject tyranny.

I can't speak to any political culture, or folkways common to the peoples inhabiting Ireland, but you have offered much insight to historical struggles to differentiate authorities of church and state--most conspicuously proved pertinent by constitutional amendment re: abortion.

So, my immediate appreciation for your observations is that (i) indeed, the balance of private and public "goods" models ethical rather than reactionary discourse; and (ii) I do hope, publication of this letter stimulates your readers to examine their expectations and the very real limitations of modern medical arts--alone or in concert with bureaucratic police apparatus--in eliminating moral hazards every minute, every hour, every day.

by Cat on Mon Jan 17th, 2022 at 08:44:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
COVID: Germany sputters on vaccine mandate
Many opponents of such a policy cite a statute in Germany's constitution, the Basic Law: It mandates that the government must protect people's health and safety and prohibits the government from interfering with a person's right to make their own choices about what happens to their body.

The Infektionsschutzgesetz (infection protection law) allows state and federal governments to mandate immunization for at-risk parts of the population" against a "contagious disease that presents clinically severe outcomes and when its epidemical spread is expected."

A widespread vaccine mandate would have to walk the line between these two contradictory elements very carefully or risk being thrown out by the courts. This has been the case in the United States, where President Joe Biden's order that large companies mandate vaccines for workers was thrown out by the Supreme Court, citing arguments of government overreach.

by Cat on Mon Jan 17th, 2022 at 09:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Cat on Mon Jan 17th, 2022 at 09:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Doctors in Germany are forbidden by law from providing information on abortion procedures

It took me 1 minute to find a list of doctors that perform abortions. Is that  possible in the US?

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Jan 18th, 2022 at 12:04:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One might imagine, no, given the EXPLOSION this year of concern for and litigation on behalf of poor menstruating persons of color fleeing undue burdens foisted on them by "deputies" of the several states ... and the SCOTUS scrutiny of "informational interest" of the states.

NIFLA v. Becerra 20 Mar 2018

The FACT Act requires clinics that primarily serve pregnant women to provide certain notices. Clinics that are licensed must notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call. Its stated purpose is to make sure that state residents know their rights and what health care services are available to them. Unlicensed clinics must notify women that California has not licensed the clinics to provide medical services. Its stated purpose is to ensure that pregnant women know when they are receiving health care from licensed professionals. Petitioners--two crisis pregnancy centers, one licensed and one unlicensed, and an organization of crisis pregnancy centers--filed suit. They alleged that both the licensed and the unlicensed notices abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Even if the State had presented a non-hypothetical justification, the FACT Act unduly burdens protected speech. It imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that is wholly disconnected from the State's informational interest. It requires covered facilities to post California's precise notice, no matter what the facilities say on site or in their advertisements. And it covers a curiously narrow subset of speakers: those that primarily provide pregnancy-related services, but not those that provide, e.g., nonprescription birth control. Such speaker-based laws run the risk that "the State has left unburdened those speakers whose messages are in accord with its own views." For these reasons, the unlicensed notice does not satisfy Zauderer, assuming that standard applies. Pp. 17-20. 839 F. 3d 823, reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO and GORSUCH,JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

archived Tue Jun 26th, 2018
by Cat on Tue Jan 18th, 2022 at 03:16:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by Cat on Fri Jan 21st, 2022 at 06:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series