So, how does the government get the authority to take marijuana off the table? How do they get the authority to take any other treatment off the table? And how do they have the authority to say that vaccination is the only acceptable course when covid-19 is rampant?

This all seems to be the same argument, so why don't I hear very many Roe supporters arguing for the freedoms I referenced above, or at least providing answers to my questions? What's the principled line of philosophy that supports a freedom to abortion without also recognizing a right to medicinal marijuana or passing up a covid-19 show (when either is done under doctor supervision)?

When it comes to marijuana, it can be more difficult to get past Wickard and Heart of Atlanta Motel when it relates to things like commodities sold on near international markets. Abortion services are often way more local of a law, far more difficult to argue interstate commerce.

I think you're making it sound more black-and-white than it really was. It's true that they weren't talking about coming into your house and holding you down. But they did try to make it as close to "you can't get a job to earn money to buy food" as they could. Pres Biden did issue an EO saying that anybody doing business with the federal government, and anybody in their supply chain, must ensure that their employees are vaccinated. Given the enormous size of the federal government, this covers a huge proportion of the country. (the courts did throw this out, but not before they'd coerced a lot of people to go against their own conscience)

Further, that's as far as the politicians and regulators were able to go. I seem to recall talk in some locales (NYC?) talking about wanting to implement vaccine passports, with which local businesses would deny entry to unvaccinated people, so you can't even go to the grocery store to buy food.

And, of course, my main point was about what the masses were arguing for. I don't think you could seriously deny that a sizable faction of people were arguing that the government SHOULD do all of the above. And that's exactly what I'm saying: people are claiming to back the idea of "bodily autonomy", but for a whole lot of them, their actions demonstrate that this is much less a fundamental inalienable right than they're willing to admit today.

A pregnant woman the next desk over to you doesn't have any effect on your body. A person infected with covid the next desk over does. You do understand how pregnancy works, right?

I imagine most would agree I have bodily autonomy to move my arms. I can't then swing my arms and beat someone to death, right? Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.

You have all the right you want to not get vaccinated so long as your action doesn't impact everyone else around you. Feel free to go live in the woods with everyone else who doesn't interact with the rest of society. Nobody is going to come by and say you need to get vaccinated, just that there are a lot of benefits to being a member of society if you choose to do so.

Roe also makes it quite clear it's not absolute:

"A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

> So, how does the government get the authority to take marijuana off the table?

For the same reason as Roe highlights above; that the right to privacy is not absolute. I think you'll find the leftist position on marijuana is fairly similar to the leftist position on abortion, though.

> And how do they have the authority to say that vaccination is the only acceptable course when covid-19 is rampant?

They don't, and they haven't.

I think that's true directionally, but not quantitatively. I haven't seen riots about marijuana, or claims that SCOTUS is corrupt.

And although I can't say this about any particular individual, I think that statistically, the left position regarding covid-19 vaccinations seems to be contrary to the "bodily autonomy" philosophy. Admittedly, there may be differences in scale of risk that lead to this difference. But the rhetoric we're hearing today seems to frame abortion rights as an absolute with no room for such finesse. And I think it is on them to explain how to draw that line.

So? "You can only say it's a right if you riot about it" is a weird position to take.

> And although I can't say this about any particular individual, I think that statistically, the left position regarding covid-19 vaccinations seems to be contrary to the "bodily autonomy" philosophy.

I don't know what you think the leftist position is on this, but no state nor the Federal government has even hinted at the idea of a universal vaccination requirement for COVID-19.

Virtually all states require quite a few vaccinations - measles, mumps, rubella, etc. - in public schools. Once again, Roe doesn't rely on "bodily autonomy", and any such right is very clearly not absolute (as Roe itself makes clear about privacy). My autonomy to swing a knife around ends when it hits your face.

Thought experiment: Do we have a right to poop? Can Congress forbid me from pooping? How would SCOTUS rule on a law banning bowel movements?

A month ago, governmental violations of bodily autonomy were ignored, or grumbled about at most. If you want me to believe that this change is qualitatively different, you need to explain that, or else I'm going to put both violations in the same bucket.

> no state nor the Federal government has even hinted at the idea of a universal vaccination requirement for COVID-19

First, regardless of what they've actually tried to do, there has been a lot of talk about how they should. Such talk comes pretty much exclusively from the same group of people who think that overturning Roe is an apocalypse.

Second, they most certainly have tried to force vaccination as much as they could get away with. That wasn't by a law saying "get vaccinated or go to jail". That was a backdoor coercive thing where the gov't tried to say "if you want to do business with the gov't then all your employees must be vaccinated (leading to employees getting fired)", in conjunction with the fact that the government is already so damned big that they can be the 800lb gorilla in purchasing as a backdoor alternative to legislation. And while this was going on, people who I'm very sure support Roe were nodding their heads saying it's the right thing to do. Again, there may be a principled argument for treating this differently. But I think it's incumbent on the Roe protesters to explain what that principle is, or they appear to be unprincipled hypocrites.

I'll take a stab at one potential explanation.

Pregnancy isn't infectious; you will not get pregnant by sitting next to a pregnant woman on the bus. Rights become more complicated when they impact others.