Supreme Court shoots down vaccine mandate

In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court blocked President Biden’s vaccine mandate. The mandate compelled employees at business with one-hundred or more employees to be vaccinated against COVID, or submit a weekly negative COVID test before being allowed to return to the workplace.

The Court wrote:

“Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly.

Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category.”

Why this matters to pro-lifers

The Court’s decision is relevant to the pro-life movement. The party of abortion is the same party that views climate change as an “existential threat” to mankind.

As we wrote yesterday, they view overpopulation as a driver of a potential climate apocalypse: The more people, the more carbon emissions; the more carbon emissions, the more likely the earth warms.

As we wrote last year, an increasing number of men and women are choosing not to have children due to climate change concerns. Some women are choosing voluntary sterilization.

What if sterilization wasn’t voluntary?

This is the question posed by Terry Jeffrey, editor-in-chief of CNSNews:

“Can President Joe Biden order your employer to make sure you are sterilized?”

Don’t scoff. Our country has a history of forced sterilization over the past hundred years or so. Although it pales in comparison to China’s, prisoners, the mentally ill, and African Americans have suffered the inhumanity of forced sterilizations.

As vice president, Mr. Biden worked with John Holdren who served as President Obama’s Director of the Offices of Science and Technology Policy. Holdren holds views which are mainstream with the party of abortion.

He asserts that “our planet is grossly overpopulated.” His solution: political pressure. Writing in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” which he co-authored with Paul and Ann Ehrlich he emphasized the role of coercive government action:

“Political pressure must be applied immediately to induce the United States government to assume its responsibility to halt the growth of the American population. Once growth is halted the government should undertake to influence the birth rate so that the population is reduced to an optimum size and maintained there.”

Population alarmists favor coercion

Holdren’s co-author, Paul Ehrlich, championed governmental coercion:

“We must cut out the cancer of population growth. Coercion? Perhaps, but coercion in a good cause [population control] … We must be relentless in pushing for population control.”

He advanced solutions which included putting birth control in our water supply, forced abortions, coercive sterilization, punitive taxes on people who have children, and other heavy-handed government solutions that violate civil liberties and human dignity.

What if a future vaccine mandate called for sterilization?

This brings us back to Terry Jeffrey’s question above. Jeffrey asks:

“Now, suppose in America we were able to develop the technology to sterilize someone simply by giving them two shots in the arm three weeks apart — just like getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

Could some future president, given the environmental threat to our planet that some scientists believe is driven by population growth, order that every American who has had two or more children get these two shots?”

Jeffrey develops his thesis in a piece published at Townhall. It’s worth a read. Suffice it to say, if an administration tries to impose a vaccine mandate to eradicate a serious virus, what might a future administration do that views population growth as a “cancer.”?

Today’s Supreme Court decision makes such action more difficult.