I’m not arguing that there weren’t elements of coercion and/or force in any or all of these cases.
But they don’t all evenly line up side-by-side.
If you want to understand why you received two responses that saw your comparison to vaccination policies as ludicrous and flippant, this is why.
Employers vs employees however, maybe that can be used to compare employes and employees.
So in Texas:
“In May of this year, the CEO of Lyft was informed that the state of Texas was planning to take “swift action” against the company for its plan to help women travel to a state where abortion remained legal for the procedure. And more recently, partners at Sidley Austin LLP, one of the largest law firms in the country, were threatened by Texas lawmakers with criminal prosecution for their role in allegedly facilitating illegal abortions in violation of a pre-Roe Texas law which makes it a crime to “furnish the means to procure an elective abortion.””
So, if you want to compare that Texas law on employer rights to provide health insurance for employees
vs
employers being penalized for not requiring vaccinations of their employees, that would be a valid comparison.
All the heavy lifting here is happening at the doctor level or the employer level.
I haven’t even reached the employee/patient level because many of these laws bypass patients/citizens/patients entirely and address the providers of services or employment.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]