So. Anyone who has used recreational drugs or alcohol should be denied treatment for any condition whatsoever?
Such as someone who was a drug addict and alcoholic like Howard Stern for 35 years?
If he needs a liver transplant, or even a treatment, he should be denied that care? Or, all care? If he has a heart attack, and has smoked his whole life, should he be denied any medical treatment and left to die?
Or anyone that has HIV/AIDS from engaging in promiscuous and unprotected homosexual or heterosexual sex?
According to him-yes.
And the parallel does not even fit. This is aimed at people who are trying to protect their bodies from an unwanted and potentially dangerous, experimental injection being mandated.
I don’t get it. Howard Stern has made his living at ridiculing and bucking the system, yet in this, he becomes a ball-washing lackey of statists?
He doesn’t even seem to see the oddity in this.
He’s a nut. What else could be expected?
No Narcan for street overdoses.
Very good post. He has no morals so we can’t expect him to see the oddity.
“I don’t get it. Howard Stern has made his living at ridiculing and bucking the system, yet in this, he becomes a ball-washing lackey of statists?”
That’s simple. He only was a rebel until “his people”, the like-minded, got in charge. Now everybody better get in line and obey, or else.
Exactly. “My body, my choice!” What’s that? F’in hypocrites, but then again democrats/liberals.
I guess one of the first questions for him could be:
If Mike needs open heart surgery, isn’t vaccinated, tests negative, therefore doesn’t have The Rona, can he get the surgery he needs?
If not, why not if he doesn’t have The Rona?