Quote Originally Posted by steelish View Post
I am? How so. Please explain.
My brief study of Holmes's Opinion in Buck v Bell leads me to believe that his intention was to uphold the practice of eugenics in the US as constitutional, rather than to validate the methods used in particular instances. I don't think that by approving permanent sterilisation in this case he was doing anything new. I have not seen any reference to the exclusive use of temporary sterilisation methods prior to this case.

But accepting, for the sake of argument, that he did legitimise permanent sterilisation for the first time by extending the meaning of "vaccination", I do not see how this demonstrates that the passage of the health bill will enable "Progressives" (who or what are they when they're at home?) to impose different and unintended penalties on the public at some time in the future? By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?