Sort-of related post:
But Kennedy said the Act could stand “when medical uncertainty persists…The Court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.” Quoting from a 1974 ruling (Marshall v. U.S.), the opinion said that “When Congress undertakes to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, legislative options must be especially broad.”
If there were a broad consensus that a procedure was medically unnecessary and dangerous, legislation would be appropriate to regulate those who went against the consensus — not to prohibit, as prohibition fails to dissuade and creates unregulable harms — but to place controls and supervision, to fully inform people of the risks and to establish liability.
But in the absence of such consensus, “in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty,” legislation is least appropriate, and most likely to be injurious of fundamental rights. This is the time when we should be studying the issue and learning enough about it to form a consensus, not to prematurely inflict a viewpoint that is widely contested.
The court has misruled.
If we had known, if we had only known — how to speak to one another.
Holocaust survivor, killed while saving lives of Virginia Tech students.
Hat-tip Rob at My Left Wing.