Why should we extend a ruling from a state court from 1905 to the entire US? By any stretch this seems like cherry-picking and goes to show how baseless the argument for mandates is.
There have been many other rulings in support for vaccine mandates since that landmark decision. Reducing such measures to nothing more than 'a gross violation of bodily autonomy' and having 'no legal basis' is just ignorant and inane.
My workplace was enforcing a vaccine mandate through an unconstitutional authoritarian justification jammed through a federal regulatory agency. The vaccine does not prevent transmission and offers little benefit to someone who's already survived the disease and is otherwise healthy and especially young. And it was the same sort of ultimatum that Harvey Weinstein would use "I'm not forcing you but if you don't have sex with me you don't get the job."
OSHA already requires workers who come in contact with potentially infectious diseases to be vaccinated (ie. hep, HIV), not to mention other drug testing and whatever else that entails. So yeah you can see the logic trying things this way.
Harvey Weinstein himself sexually assaulted women and lied about it, so no they're not similar at all.
Despite how you feel and in retrospect, we now know that the vaccine was effective[1](regardless of how it was spun) and it would've been more effective if more people took it.
Clearly SCOTUS saw this as overreach so sure, there was a constitutional violation the way things were handled and things are working out okay. However, your OC comes off as ignorant and disingenuous when you look into things a bit.
