Would you please stop posting flamewar comments and otherwise breaking the site guidelines? You've unfortunately done it a lot lately. We ban that sort of account because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

If having had an abortion materially negatively impacted a healthcare worker's ability to safely provide healthcare to a sick person, then yes, that should probably be grounds for disallowing those people from working as healthcare practitioners. Thankfully that's not the case.

That's actually quite likely legal already.

If expect there are certain Catholic organizations who would fire you if you admitted to having had an abortion.

Your intuition is correct (in that there's no over-arching precedent or Constitutionally-derived right that makes it illegal), but it's specifically banned under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as per a 1978 law modifying the act. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnancy-discrimination-act-1...

... Which goes to the court ruling that's the topic of the article: Congress has the power to decide these issues.

does being vaccinated stop you from spreading it to your co-workers?

what about all the WFH people mandated into vaccines? how does it impact that employer?

> does being vaccinated stop you from spreading it to your co-workers?

It significantly reduces the likelihood that you spread it to your coworkers (and, perhaps more importantly, to the old and sick people that healthcare workers tend to serve). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v...

> what about all the WFH people mandated into vaccines? how does it impact that employer?

Obviously vaccine requirements for remote workers don't make a ton of sense in principle, but in practice I worry that an exemption for remote employees would result in a lot of people getting mis-coded (intentionally or otherwise) as remote and ultimately showing up at work unvaccinated and putting vulnerable people at risk.

> does being vaccinated stop you from spreading it to your co-workers?

To a significant degree.

> what about all the WFH people mandated into vaccines?

This case wasn't about them.

How about if it's the 1960s, and you're a flight attendant, and "being sexy" is semi-officially part of your job. And your job is requiring you to get an abortion (which is still illegal in the US, and so you're going to have to go to Sweden to get it). And if you won't, well, nobody's making you - you can get a different job.

This is, as far as I can see, the most directly analogous situation. Those who support vaccine mandates, how do you feel about this situation? (And note that this was just an "unofficial" employee mandate - there was no government entity involved.)

Pregnancy was explicitly added as a protected characteristic under the Civil Rights Act in 1978. Government has a bona fide interest in preventing conduct that could discourage people from becoming pregnant. It has no interest in encouraging people to remain unvaccinated against deadly communicable diseases, and in fact it has an interest in exactly the opposite of that. Accordingly, unvaccinated people aren’t a protected class, nor should they be.

Also, this is a minor point but illegal abortions are many orders of magnitude more risky than COVID vaccines.

I strongly oppose broad-reaching government-imposed vaccine mandates, but I strongly support a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers specifically. The US government has already taken on the responsibility for setting employment eligibility standards for healthcare workers, and it makes sense for being vaccinated to be one of those criteria.

If you truly believe that these situations are comparable, I don't think I could expect you to engage in good-faith discussion.

That's a handy way for you to dismiss the point, while completely refusing to engage with it. But that's OK. You can expect whatever you expect.

I think the two situations are comparable in some ways, and not in others. The "have to do something medical in order to keep your job" part is one of the ways it's comparable. The "bodily autonomy" is another. It's different in that it's not a government mandate. It's different in how it affects others.

So: Did you actually want to engage, or did you just want to give a plausible dismissal?