[JumpCrisscross]

> Suppose an anti-abortion president gets elected and he elects someone as head and tells them that health care providers that accept medicare or medicaid cannot provide abortions

Not comparable. Based on current law, abortion is a Constitutionally-protected right. Based on precedent from the Spanish-flu era, the government has broad public health powers.

All that said, as someone who isn’t a fan of how much power Congress has ceded to the executive through administrative powers (which delegate legislative powers to the executive through rulemaking), I wouldn’t mind seeing those curtailed.

[claytongulick]

You should probably read the Jacobson decision more carefully [1], since you believe that it grants the government the right to mandate vaccines.

The decision is much more narrow that you've been led to believe.

It specifically addresses state police powers, not federal powers.

It also doesn't mandate vaccination, it allows a small fine to be paid instead.

Also, according to a well known attorney I consulted (who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court) the Jacobson decision has been overturned countless times and is considered an awful ruling, the Healthcare equivalent of Dred Scott.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

[JumpCrisscross]

> since you believe that it grants the government the right to mandate vaccines

Specifically avoided saying that. Stated simply, my point is there is positive precedent to the precursors to vaccine mandates, and reasonable ambiguity to the question per se. There is clear negative precedent for abortion. As such, comparing them is misleading. (Better analogy may be found in gun rights.)